Evaluation of the Swedish International Agricultural …...Evaluation of the Swedish International Agricultural Network Initiative (SIANI) Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) 5 4.

Evaluation of the Swedish International

Agricultural Network Initiative (SIANI)

March – May 2012

Bo Tengnäs and Kristina Mastroianni

31 May, 2012

Evaluation of the Swedish International Agricultural Network Initiative (SIANI)

Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)

1

Table of Content:

ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................ 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 3

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 6

1.1 Evaluation purpose and approach ............................................................................... 6 1.2 The evaluation team ..................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 6

2. THE SWEDISH INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL NETWORK I NITIATIVE 7

2.1 History .......................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Goals and objectives .................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Stakeholders/target groups .......................................................................................... 9 2.4 Logical construct .......................................................................................................... 9 2.5 Policy context ............................................................................................................. 12 2.6 SIANI organisation ..................................................................................................... 14 2.7 Inputs .......................................................................................................................... 16 2.8 Activities and outputs ................................................................................................. 18

3. FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................... 20

3.1 Relevance ................................................................................................................... 20 3.2 Effectiveness ............................................................................................................... 23 3.3 Impact ......................................................................................................................... 28 3.4 Efficiency .................................................................................................................... 28 3.5 Sustainability .............................................................................................................. 30 3.6. Governance ............................................................................................................... 31 3.7 A SWOT analysis ........................................................................................................ 33

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 34

4.1 SIANI’s current status and achievements ................................................................... 34 4.2 SIANI remains relevant and needed ........................................................................... 34 4.2 Goals, objectives and target groups ........................................................................... 34 4.3 Subject matter coverage ............................................................................................. 35 4.4 A need to take a step back .......................................................................................... 36 4.5 Future institutional arrangements ............................................................................. 36 4.6 Future funding options ............................................................................................... 37 4.7 Ensure stringent documentation for a second phase.................................................. 37

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 39

Appendix 1. Terms of Reference ....................................................................................... 40 Appendix 2. Persons and organisations consulted ........................................................... 45 Appendix 3. Documentation consulted ............................................................................. 48 Appendix 4. List of activities ............................................................................................ 50 Appendix 5. Evaluation survey ......................................................................................... 52



2

Acronyms AGRA ARDD

Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa Agriculture and Rural Development Day (Rio 2012)

EF Ekologiskt Forum EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation GP Göteborgsposten GU Gothenburg University IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development KSLA Royal Academy of Agricultural Sciences LFA Logical Framework Analysis LU Lund University M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MFA Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs MSEK Million Swedish Crowns NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations ODA Official Development Assistance OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PGD Swedish Policy for Global Development PMEC Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Communication SEI Stockholm Environment Institute SEK Swedish Crowns SIANI Swedish International Agricultural Network Initiative Sida Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency SIFI Secretariat for International Forestry Issues SIWI Stockholm International Water Institute SLU Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences SWH Swedish Water House SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats ToR Terms of Reference UN United Nations WB World Bank WWF World Wide Fund for nature



3

Executive summary The purpose of this evaluation of Swedish International Agricultural Network Initiative (SIANI) was to draw on the experiences of the first phase to take decisions for the future activities. The evaluation method was based on the OECD standard evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, impact, efficiency and sustainability according to Sida recommendations. This was complemented by the use of outcome mapping i.e. not only to assess the planned outcomes and impacts that can be attributed to the intervention, but also to look for unexpected or unintended outcomes to which SIANI may have contributed. The evaluation activities included stakeholder interviews, a stakeholder questionnaire, a SWOT analysis, documentation review and financial review. The primary stakeholders of SIANI, i.e. the SIANI Secretariat, SEI, Sida and the Advisory group, have participated in a consultative process to develop the final report and their comments have been incorporated. At the time when SIANI was initiated there was a general consensus among Swedish stakeholders that the attention to agriculture in development cooperation had decreased significantly but that events such as raising global food prices showed an alarming need to refocus on agriculture as a tool for development. In addition, the Swedish Policy for Global Development (PGD) from 2007 advocated an increased stakeholder coordination and private sector engagement. This led to the initiation of SIANI in 2008 with SEI as a host organization. The network was established through a consultative inception phase and its secretariat has been fully operational since August 2009. Sida has provided the financial input for SIANI with a total original budget of 16,521,000 SEK over three years, 2009-2011, now including a no-cost extension to the end of 2012. The exact formulation of SIANI’s goals, objectives and focus has varied over time but the current goal is described the ToR for this evaluation as: “to lay the foundation for a coherent Swedish Response to the 21st century food and farming challenge”. The project document developed by Sida and SEI in August 2008 presenting the establishment of SIANI describes three main functions of SIANI:

• Facilitate and enable networking • Organize clusters around specific thematic areas • Synthesise and enable understanding and knowledge connected to crucial agricultural

issues These functions have been developed through concrete activities in network communication, seminars and workshops, Cluster/Expert group activities, publications and strategic processes. Findings The evaluation team is in agreement with a vast majority of the stakeholders contacted, that the basic arguments for SIANI remain valid and there is still a need for promotion of agriculture on the Swedish development agenda, however the views on how this should be done are diverging among stakeholders. SIANI’s goals and driving forces are unclear and needs to be redefined for a next phase. The changes in Sida’s relation to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have affected SIANI.



4

SIANI’s has engaged a wide range of stakeholders and established a network with 630 members from 90 organisations. It has a functional organisational structure and secretariat and has carried out a number of activities, most notably its high quality seminars and workshops. SIANI has been operational for a rather short time so it would be unrealistic to expect that very wide and far-reaching goals have already been achieved. The respondents to the questionnaire were of a slightly positive opinion that the interest in Sweden for international agriculture development had increased since 2009, but this is not possible to attribute to SIANI. The Swedish investment levels to agriculture and rural development have remained low. The SIANI can be credited to some increased Swedish visibility in international fora through its participation in the recent UN Climate Change Conferences. It has also contributed to events which yielded learning and increased cross-sector dialogue, however as shown by the under-spending during its first three years, the total volume of activity has been below expectations. One major obstacle that caused delays in the implementation and efficiency of the network was that the governance structure of SIANI took almost a year to become effective. The outcome with a separate Steering committee and Advisory group is however considered conducive for the future. SIANI has shown high efficiency in certain activities (e.g. seminars and workshops) and less in others (e.g. cluster/expert groups). A no-cost extension generally reduces the cost efficiency as it increases the percentage of the budget going to the management of the network while less goes to its activities. The most critical aspect for sustaining the SIANI membership network under the current circumstances is if there will be continued funding for this relatively young initiative. There is a potential sustainability in its current organisational structure. The first phase of SIANI has given additional knowledge to participants at events and the opportunity for members to expand their networks, thereby potentially increasing the quality of Swedish support. Recommendations Practically all stakeholders contacted are of the opinion that the basic justification remains valid, i.e. there is still a need for strengthened attention to agriculture in the Swedish development cooperation. Following its ToR, the evaluation team has developed a set of nine recommendations for the future based on SIANI’s past experiences:

1. In order to reach the goals set for 2012 in terms of activities and outputs, the Secretariat is recommended to focus on facilitating these processes strategically. The established M&E system needs further attention to maximise its potential. Prime responsibility: The Secretariat

2. SIANI should be supported for another phase. Greater clarity on its goals, objectives and target groups must be part of the foundation for a second phase. A clearly defined connection with development cooperation partners in developing countries is needed. Prime responsibility: Sida, the Advisory group

3. A second phase must be based on a more stringent analysis on what SIANI is to achieve if it is to attract funds earmarked for international development cooperation. Ultimate goals must include results in developing countries, through increased quality and volume of agricultural support and conducive policies for such support. Ultimate target groups must include people living in poverty in developing countries. Prime responsibility: Sida, the Advisory group



5

4. A continued SIANI should explicitly be an initiative targeting land use for both agriculture and forestry production. Food security, as defined by FAO, could be an alternative option, however, food security is a broader issue and not easily matched to institutional set ups in Sweden or internationally. Prime responsibility: Sida, the Advisory group

5. The Secretariat should make continuous and strengthened efforts to bring in a wide array of actors representing different ideas while implementing the activities planned for 2012. A second phase of SIANI should be consciously inclusive and give room for actors with somewhat different agendas so long as these agendas contribute to the shared vision of enhanced Swedish engagement. Prime responsibility: The Secretariat and the Advisory group

6. Commission a baseline study of the current status of agriculture in Swedish development cooperation. This should be combined with a study to review Swedish past experiences of agricultural development cooperation, including experiences from NGOs, research and private sector, to suggest a list subject area niches which are most relevant for Swedish engagement. An ambition should be to take “more attention to agriculture” more clearly beyond the stage of general rhetoric. Prime responsibility: The Secretariat under guidance of the Advisory group and in consultation with Sida

7. Devise a way to get several core Government actors, including SEI, SLU and possibly the Swedish Board of Agriculture- more equally engaged, and define more clearly the relationship with MFA and the Ministry of Rural Affairs. Also define more clearly what role the private sector can realistically play in relation to SIANI. Prime responsibility: Sida

8. Explore different funding options. Prime responsibility: Sida and Influential members of the Advisory group

9. Initiate, as a matter of urgency, the preparation of plans for a second phase. Ensure rigour and quality of process and in documentation. This task includes a careful analysis of the roles of a future SIANI (reference to the section on relevance in this report) and better definition of its governance structures. Prime responsibility: Sida and elected members of the Advisory group. Hire an independent consultant to assist in the process.



6

1. Introduction

1.1 Evaluation purpose and approach

The evaluation of the first phase of the Swedish International Agricultural Network Initiative (SIANI), presented in this report, was carried out in March and April 2012. According to the Terms of Reference (ToR; Appendix 1), the evaluation was envisaged as a learning process for the primary stakeholders of SIANI, helping the Secretariat, the Advisory group, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) to draw on the experiences of the first phase to take decisions for the future activities. The ToR stipulates that the evaluation should be presented in a report that:

• Assesses the relevance of SIANI’s stated objectives, strategies and activities to its over-all goal;

• Evaluates the past effectiveness of SIANI in implementing the chosen activities; • Provides recommendations on how to optimize internal capacity building and learn

from past experiences; • Proposes how SIANI could be further improved and developed, if Sida should decide

to continue supporting the initiative; • Propose other possibilities for financing if Sida should decide not to continue to

support SIANI. A number of evaluation questions are proposed covering the OECD standard evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, impact, efficiency and sustainability. The evaluation team studied documentation and contacted a rather large number of key stakeholders for personal meetings and additional ones for telephone conversations with a total of 40 stakeholders interviewed. A survey with ten key questions was also sent to 80 stakeholders out of whom 40 responded. An ambition was to apply outcome mapping, i.e. not only to assess the planned outcomes and impacts that can be attributed to the intervention, but also to look for unexpected or unintended outcomes to which SIANI may have contributed. To some extent the same parameters have been investigated while using different investigation methods and results then compared. Such triangulation increases the reliability of findings provided that the results are congruent. SEI has introduced a system for systematic monitoring of its activities (The PMEC system). An ambition with this evaluation is to generate information of relevance for that system. Information on people met or contacted are attached (Appendix 2).

1.2 The evaluation team

The evaluation was carried out by Bo Tengnäs (Team Leader) and Kristina Mastroianni (Agronomist).

1.3 Limitations

The team wishes to express its appreciation to the Secretariat for its full support during the evaluation process. Thanks are also due to other stakeholders who set aside time to meet the team and/or to respond to the survey questions and, in some cases, also to add valuable comments to the survey.



7

A few limitations ought to be highlighted too:

• SIANI was not based on a Logical Framework Analysis (LFA) as per normal standard • There is very limited baseline information • The PMEC system is just becoming operational for SIANI at the time of the

evaluation • Although the team managed to get in touch with most key stakeholders there were a

few stakeholders with whom it failed to establish contact.

2. The Swedish International Agricultural Network Initiative

2.1 History

Inspired by other initiatives, notably related to water (Swedish Water House), marine ecosystems (an earlier Marine Initiative) and forests (the Forest Initiative), discussions commenced within Sida in 2006 on the possibility of creating a platform or a network aimed at strengthening the Swedish engagement in international agricultural development issues, to increase the understanding of agriculture’s role for poverty reduction and to enhance cooperation between pertinent Swedish actors. Further consultations and considerations during 2007 and 2008 led to the formulation of a project document dated 19.9.2008, an assessment memo dated 22.9.2008 and an agreement between Sida and SEI dated 29.9 and 8.10.2008. In the agreement, Sida committed a total of SEK 16,521,000 to SEI for the establishment and operation of SIANI from October 2008–December 2011 (SEK 692,200 for an inception period lasting October 2008 to January 2009, SEK 4,561,600 for the remainder of 2009, SEK 5,241,600 for 2010 and SEK 6,025,600 for 2011). Work during the inception period commenced swiftly with wide consultations with stakeholders (142 people representing 91 organisations). The result of the scoping assessment and stakeholder consultations was presented at a workshop with over 60 participants on 29.1.2009. An inception report was finalised and included suggestions on SIANI’s structure, focus and a work plan for 2009. From there on, momentum appears to have slowed down. The proposed Steering committee could not be established with the envisaged composition and the proposed governance structure was thus left hanging in the air. There was a continued dialogue between the Secretariat and Sida. The inception period that was scheduled to last till January was followed by a period managed by an interim Secretariat, which was in turn followed by a Start up phase from 10.8.2009 to 31.12.2009. Although 2009 was characterised by staff turnover, progress was made on the institutional arrangements, website and network membership among others. The issues related to the governance structure were resolved in May 2010 with the establishment of an Advisory group composed of members and a Steering committee with SEI and Sida staff. From then SIANI became operational in its present form. SIANI has not been subjected to any earlier evaluation with the exception of a membership survey in February-March 2012, which included evaluative elements.



8

2.2 Goals and objectives

The exact formulation of SIANI’s goals, objectives and focus has varied over time. The project document The original project document (19.9.2008), which was the basis for Sida’s decision on funding, stated that the overall goal was “to lay the foundation for increased and sustained effective development cooperation in the area of poverty reduction through sustainable agricultural production”. Three major functions were identified:

• To facilitate and enable networking between communities of practice, research and policy making in Sweden and the South;

• To organize clusters around specific thematic areas, e.g. food security in Africa and Asia of key interest to Sida and Swedish Government agencies; and

• To synthesize and enable understanding and knowledge connected to crucial agricultural issues through, policy dialogues and consultations, conferences, seminars, workshops, the media and web-based material.

The Inception Report The Inception Report (March 2009) suggested a Network Mission: “Towards a coherent response to agricultural development”. Six key functions were derived to spell out the mission in more concrete terms:

• Facilitating inter-sectoral initiatives; • Enabling recognition of competence; • Addressing controversial questions; • Supporting practitioners’ involvement in policy processes; • Providing feed back from policy implementation; and • Creating a platform for international stakeholders.

The implementation was envisaged to be based on the following mechanisms:

• Strategic initiatives; • Dialogues on sustainable agricultural development; and • Network communication.

The Annual Reports for 2009, 2010 and 2011 The three Annual Reports all state the overall aim of SIANI as “to operationalise the renewed interest in sustainable agricultural development into activities which increase Swedish support and involvement in agricultural development in the international arena”. The work plans for the respective subsequent years are structured in a way that resembles LFA’s, but it is noted that the Objectives column does not include proper objectives but rather crude activities which are specified further in the Activities column. The ToR for the evaluation The ToR for the evaluation (30.1.2012) provides additional information on the key features of SIANI. It mentions that SIANI was established “in order to lay the foundation for a coherent Swedish Response to the 21st century food and farming challenge”.



9

With a slight elaboration in the work plan for 2011 compared to the earlier years work plans, two objectives to SIANI’s overall goal were formulated as follows and reflected in the ToR:

• To stimulate and inject new knowledge into the Swedish debate on agriculture for development; and

• To facilitate cross-sector policy dialogue, in line with the coherence aim of the Swedish Policy for Global Development (PGD).

Two main trends of thinking that underpinned the design of SIANI are mentioned:

• A perceived neglect over the last decades of the crucial role of the agricultural sector to overall sustainable development; and

• The aim of policy coherence across government departments and economic sectors as stipulated in the PGD.

The ToR further mention that it has emerged clearly over the last year (i.e. 2011) that SIANI must limit itself to some core topics and build its activities on the commitment and engagement of partners. The initial core topics have been identified as

• Climate‐Smart Agriculture for Poverty Alleviation; • Competing Demands on Agricultural Lands; • Agricultural Trade and Markets; • Gender in Agriculture, and • Nutrient Flows/Sustainable Production.

2.3 Stakeholders/target groups

The envisaged target groups have remained more or less the same throughout. The project document The Project document mentions the following envisaged target groups (=candidates for membership):

• Academic institutions; • Research institutes; • Private sector; and • Civil Society.

The ToR for the evaluation The ToR provides the following more elaborate identification of stakeholders:

• Primary Stakeholders: Sida, SEI, Secretariat, Advisory Group, Expert Groups; • Secondary stakeholders: Government departments and authorities, NGOs, Academia,

Private sector; and • Beneficiaries: Members, Policy makers, Swedish resource base.

2.4 Logical construct

In the absence of a clear Logical Framework Analysis, the evaluation team asked the Secretariat staff to illustrate how they perceive the logic of SIANI in the form of a results chain. Since there has been variation with regard to goals and objectives over time, the staff was in fact asked to prepare three results chains representing their perception of SIANI at three different times, at inception, current and future scenario. The result is presented in Tables 1–3.



10

The three tables illustrates that there is a perceived change over time. To a certain extent, the three tables also illustrate that there is a rather weak link between SIANI as it is perceived now and its overall goal, namely that SIANI was established “in order to lay the foundation for a coherent Swedish Response to the 21st century food and farming challenge”. It could also be argued that there is a somewhat weak link between having a Swedish focus on stakeholders and beneficiaries and the overall goal of a Sida-funded intervention. The logical construct as it is perceived by interviewed stakeholders will be further discussed and analysed in Section 3 Findings.



11

Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact Inception team

Potential members

Sida funds

SEI staff

Access to facilities of Stockholm University

Planning and project design

Inception workshop and feed back

Networking

Recruitment of SIANI staff

Inception report

Information communicated to potential members

Participation in SIANI design and implementation

Secretariat staff recruited

Awareness of SIANI within SEI and externally

Identification of potential membership

SIANI design identified and discussed with broad range of potential members

Conditions created for start up of network

Table 1. The results chain during the inception period as it is perceived by the SIANI Secretariat now Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact Secretariat staff

Members

Sida funds

Expert groups

Advisory group

Funds from collaborators

SEI staff

Interns

SEI project board support

SEI communications team

Access to facilities of Stockholm University

Seminars series, lectures, workshops

Colloquium

Conferences, training courses

Web site

Expert groups

Associated expert groups

Thematic group

Newsletter

Debate articles in media

Networking

Publications, e.g. policy briefs

Marketing, advertisement services for interested Swedish stakeholders (vacancies, etc.)

Awareness raising

Capacity building

Raising Swedish profile

Giving tools to members

Stimulating new thoughts and debate

Communicating information from members

Communicate to the Swedish public directly

Stimulate participation in international agricultural issues

Bringing global agricultural issues to the national arena

Contribute to raise food security on the Swedish arena

Contribute to the food security and climate change agenda

Contribute to bring gender matters into agriculture

Enable Sida to access the resources and events SIANI creates for members

Improving Sida’s expertise within the agricultural sector

Bring audiences to events

Connecting agriculture actors with non-typical agriculture actors

SIANI’s website visited from non-Swedish web addresses

Bringing together different actors

Creating a better understanding of food security issues to the Swedish public

Raising the profile and the importance of agriculture as a mode of development

Creating awareness of agriculture and development issues outside of academic circles

Table 2. The current situation results chain as it is perceived by the SIANI Secretariat now Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact Secretariat staff (at least 2.5 staff positions)

Members

Sida funds

Expert groups

Advisory group

Funds from collaborators

SEI staff

Interns

SEI project board support

Capacity and resource base enhancement

Membership fees

Seminars series, lectures, workshops, conferences, training courses

Web site

Expert groups

Newsletter

Debate articles in media

Networking

Publications, e.g. policy briefs

Marketing, advertisement services for interested Swedish stakeholders (vacancies, etc.)

Identify future agricultural experts at universities

Connect members with educational and funding opportunities, job offers and other institutions in the network

Newsletters

Offer project support systems

Implement pilot studies of methodologies

Develop projects, such as with Rainforest Alliance

More expert groups: Gender, Nexus, ICT, Land tenure, Climate smart agriculture

Enhanced web site

Feature member projects on web site

Members’ annual conference

Awareness raising

Capacity building

Raising Swedish profile

Giving tools to members

Stimulating new thought and debate

Communicating information from network

Communicate to Swedish public directly

Stimulate SIANI members participation in international agricultural issues

The Swedish resource base visible at international conferences

Contributed to the food security and climate change agenda

Gender mainstreamed in SIANI activities

Enabled Sida and UD to access the resources and events SIANI creates for its members

Sida’s expertise within the agricultural sector capacitated

Bring different audiences (geographic location) to events.

Table 3. Future scenario results chain as it is perceived by the SIANI Secretariat now



12

2.5 Policy context

At the time when SIANI was initiated there was a general consensus among Swedish stakeholders that the attention to agriculture in development cooperation had decreased significantly but that recent events at the time (2007-2008) with raising global food prices showed an alarming need to refocus on agriculture as a tool for development (Inception report SIANI, 2009). This combined with the recently adopted Swedish Policy for Global Development (PGD) which advocated an increased stakeholder coordination and private sector engagement led to the development of SIANI as a means to respond to these combined challenges (SIANI Program Document, 2008). Increasing international attention to agriculture The international attention to agriculture and food security has indeed increased in the period from 2007 to 2012, mainly due to the globalisation of the food market and the experienced volatility in food prices (2007-2008 and 2011) and the climate change debate where agriculture and food production is one of the main sources of green house gas emissions, estimated at 30%. Many of the tools to combat climate change also lie within agriculture as a carbon sink through changes and modifications of current production systems. It is also now generally accepted that agricultural production has a major impact on the people living in extreme poverty, namely smallholder farmers, rural labourers and poor urban dwellers (WB World Development Report 2008). The urbanisation is especially strong in Asia and Africa and will require major investments in agricultural production and logistics to feed this growing, vulnerable, urban population. Statistics (FAO, 2011) show that the rural population will remain at the same level as today and that the population increase will be concentrated to the urban population. In order to supply a growing urban population with affordable food, the main producers of food, which are the smallholder farmers, will need to significantly increase their production and ability to reach markets as Sida has pointed out in its recent Issue Paper “Agriculture and Food Security in Development – review of selected issues” developed in 2011. The European Commission adopted in 2010 a new “EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges” which focuses on the right to food and the importance of smallholder production. At the same time, some experts argue that smallholder production may not eternally be a model to rely significantly upon. It is argued that as much as there has been, and still is, a strong trend towards larger production units in developed countries, such process should be expected and encouraged also in the developing countries. Investment levels The level of investment in the sector is still at a much lower level than during the 1980’s (declining by 43% since the mid 80’s until 2006/7 according to OECD/ODA statistics 2010). The World Bank has increased its investment in the agriculture and rural development sector from 2005 to 2010 with 65% but such development has not yet taken effect in Swedish development aid where the levels remain the same in 2010 as in 2005 (OECD/ODA 2011). The Swedish attention to the global agricultural challenges is however increasing and is receiving political support which can be seen in the direct support from the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) in 2011 to the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA; 60 MSEK) and to the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) in 2010 (40 MSEK). In a recent article in the internet based newspaper Newsmill, a Sida official points out several ongoing initiatives in the sector amounting to 750 MSEK in 2011 and that there



13

are plans for increasing the investment levels into agriculture in the near future (http://www.newsmill.se/node/42890). Institutional changes in Sweden The start up of SIANI has also been affected by the situation in the Swedish authorities during the same time. The recent reorganisations of Sida combined with staff reductions as well as the new directives from MFA have affected Sida. This affected also SIANI’s potential to participate in strategic processes. Other related initiatives There are other contemporary Swedish initiatives within related technical areas that can serve as a good comparison to SIANI (Table 4). These organisations have often acted as collaborative partners to SIANI and co-hosted several events and activities. The Swedish Water House (SWH), hosted by Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), has the longest history of these initiatives and has received recognition in Sweden and internationally as a qualified actor within international water issues. The SWH has direct funding from the MFA and the Ministry of Environment. Sida and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency are represented in its steering committee. Ekologiskt Forum (EF) is another network hosted currently by SEI but initiated through the Royal Academy of Agricultural Sciences (KSLA) in 2002. It is funded by the Ministry of Rural Affairs and reports to the Board of Agriculture. Agri4D is a research network financed by Sida (the earlier SAREC) and hosted by SLU in collaboration with the Afrint Group at Lund University (LU) and the Environmental Economics Unit of Gothenburg University (GU). They are strictly working with research and not multi-stakeholder networking. The Secretariat for International Forestry Issues (SIFI) receives financing for its secretariat from SLU, KSLA, the Ministry of Rural Affairs and World Wide Fund for nature (WWF) and is hosted by KSLA. The Forest Initiative was started by Sida (funding agency) and implemented in collaboration with Föreningen Skogen. Later on the Swedish Forest Agency became another important partner. However, the Forest Initiative has not received continued funding from April 2012 and its status is uncertain. Name Financing Established Host Swedish Water House (SWH)

MFA and Ministry of Environment

2003 Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI)

Ekologiskt Forum (EF) Ministry of Rural Affairs 2002 SEI (formerly KSLA) Agriculture for Development research network (Agri4D)

Sida (the earlier SAREC) 2009 SLU, (the Afrint Group at LU, the Environmental Economics Unit of GU)

Secretariat for International Forestry Issues (SIFI)

SLU, KSLA, Ministry of Rural Affairs, WWF

2010 KSLA

Forest Initiative (SI) Sida, Swedish Forest Agency 2007 Föreningen Skogen & the Swedish Forest Agency

SIANI Sida 2008 SEI Table 4. Some contemporary initiatives



14

2.6 SIANI organisation

SIANI is funded by Sida and operates with SEI as its institutional host. SEI provides a base for the network and support functions such as communication and website development. A majority of the staff members have been recruited and employed by SEI. The contract includes a possibility to also draw from SEI’s technical staff in specific areas and for specific assignments. Figure 1 presents the organisational structure of SIANI. Figure 1. Organisational structure of SIANI Steering committee SEI is the contractual part to Sida and the two organisations therefore constitute the Steering committee which, according to the SIANI Administrative Manual, has the purpose of deciding on the administrative issues (e.g. personnel, budget allocations, disbursements and evaluations/audits). The initial plan to have only a Steering committee comprised of representatives from the different members’ organisations, including ministries and authorities, was not possible contractually. There was, therefore, a split into two different entities, the Steering committee handling contractual issues and the Advisory group responsible for technical guidance to the Secretariat and the Steering committee. The Steering committee meets twice per year and is guided by the Advisory group’s recommendations on work plans and annual budgets. Advisory group The Advisory group was finally formed in May 2010 after a long discussion between SEI and Sida on its format and responsibilities. The Advisory group is composed of persons with a broad experience in different aspects of international agricultural development. Members are appointed in their own “personal capacity” but bring the perspectives from their respective

MEMBERS & MEMBER ORGANISATIONS

SIANI Secretariat SIANI Coordinator, Advisor, Project Officer, Administrator, Interns, SEI Staff

Steering Committee

SEI Sida

Advisory Board

Cluster/Expert groups

1. AgriSan 2. Biofuel 3. China Land Inv.



15

organisations. The responsibilities of the Advisory group as detailed in the SIANI Administrative Manual are:

• Follow-up SIANI’s activities (read and discuss reports and plans) and provide guidance as to focus and priorities.

• Analyze and make recommendations to the Steering Committee regarding plans of work and activity budgets

• Provide ideas and guidance regarding future areas of (operative and thematic) focus • Contribute information on own activities and contacts/networks/organizations

/processes of possible relevance to SIANI • Provide collegial/professional feedback on issues brought to the Group by the

Secretariat • Disseminate information as to SIANI activities or processes to their respective

organisations Meetings are held twice a year with the first meeting held in August 2010. Secretariat The personnel of the SIANI Secretariat have changed several times over the past four years. The plans for the network were developed during the inception period (October 2008 – February 2009) by a group from within SEI led by Neil Powell, which also included Rasmus Klocker Larsen and Maria Osbeck. This group continued to manage the network during an interim period until the Project Coordinator for SIANI, Melinda Fones-Sundell, was recruited and joined in August 2009. In October 2011, Madeleine Fogde took over the as SIANI Coordinator on 50% while Melinda Fones-Sundell remained on a part time basis as an Advisor to the network. The Project Officer position was divided between Rasmus Klocker Larsen (75%) and Maria Osbeck (15%) from the Inception period until January 2010 when they both left SIANI to work on another SEI project. Olivia Taghioff was then recruited as Project Officer starting April 2010 until December 2011. Matthew Fielding was recruited in February 2012 and currently holds this position. A part time position as Administrative Officer with responsibilities for membership registration and the membership data base has been held by several people in succession: Felicity Rolf, Fennia Carlander, Mauricio Portilla and currently Benita Forsman (currently at 25% of her time). SIANI has engaged several Interns, students in their final stages of their Master’s programmes, since 2010. Their involvement has extended from a few months to a year. In 2010 – 2011 these include Amy Williams, Befedaku Desalegn, Mauricio Portilla, Falco Mueller-Fischler, and Jonathan Craker. SIANI has a contractual possibility to utilise SEI staff for short term technical or administrative support under the budget for “ Network management”. This possibility and budget has however not been used fully. Staff of the SIANI Secretariat are SEI employees.



16

Cluster/Expert groups A general call for Cluster groups was issued in October 2009 in the first Newsletter and on SIANI’s website. Three Cluster/Expert groups have been formed under SIANI:

• AgriSan – Agricultural sanitation • Biofuel and food security • Chinese Land Investment

The AgriSan Cluster group was initiated as a follow up on activities within the Sida funded EcoSanRes programme, managed by SEI. The Cluster group is coordinated by Mats Johansson at Ecoloop who holds a contract with SEI for the coordination and activities of the Cluster group. The intention was to start in the beginning of 2010, but the contract signing delayed and the first meeting was held in September 2010. The Biofuel Expert group started in 2009 and has involved a group of up to 10 people in its meetings. The group is coordinated by David Bauner, Renetech, and Francis Johnsson, SEI. The Chinese Land Investment Expert group, involving a core group of seven people, is coordinated by Mari Ohlsson at SEI. It started in October 2011 after approval by the Advisory group in June 2011. The attendance at the group’s events has varied. Some 20 people have been involved in some way since the group first convened. There have also been an Associated Expert group on Climate smart agriculture and a Thematic group on Gender in Agriculture focused on activities within these topics. Members SIANI membership has passed 630 members representing 90 organisations. A member survey conducted by the Secretariat in February 2012 showed that the main reason for members to join SIANI were “to learn more about agriculture for development” and “to connect with other actors”. Member organisations are often collaborating in activities and co-hosting events with SIANI.

2.7 Inputs

The main inputs available to SIANI are in form of its Secretariat staff, its members and Sida funds. SIANI has also engaged several interns during the years for mutual benefit. The host SEI has provided a platform in form of staff, project board support and has enabled SIANI to benefit from their communications team and receive access to facilities of Stockholm University. SIANI has benefited from inputs from its host SEI in form of competence, contacts and organisational support functions not paid through the specific Network Management budget, however partly paid through the SEI overhead. External inputs have been provided through the Cluster/Expert groups, the Advisory group and in funds from collaborators in e.g. co-hosting of events. SIANI has had as a strategy to involve other organisations through co-hosting of events and activities, especially seminars and workshops. Collaborating organisations have been an important source of technical input, networking and a source for sharing of financial inputs to the activities. Inputs have been provided to SIANI from all people who have devoted their time at no or low cost during seminars, workshops, Cluster/Expert group meetings, Advisory group meetings etc.



17

Financial inputs Sida has provided the financial input for SIANI with a total original budget of 16,521,000 SEK over three years, 2009-2011. At the end of its original project period, SIANI had not spent the funds according to plan (9,916,000 SEK spent), mainly due to delays in starting up the Secretariat with contractual discussions and in setting up the organisational structure of a separated Steering committee and Advisory group. The Advisory group had its first meeting in August 2010 and even though the Secretariat had already started with membership and seminar activities, the active project period with a functioning governance structure was significantly reduced by approximately 1.5 yrs. Many other activities were held back due to this process as is evident in the comparison of original budget with the actual cost of the original project period 2009–2011, including the inception period (Figure 2). The figure shows that the budgets for Consultancy, Issue Clusters and Publications have not been utilized as planned, while the expenditures have mainly focused on Website development, Meetings/Workshops and Network management through involvement of SEI Staff.

Figure 2. Comparison original budget with cost per activity 2009-2011 (including inception period).

2009

(Oct 08-Dec 09) 2010

(Jan-Dec) 2011

(Jan-Dec) 2012

Original budget 5,253,800 5,241,600 6,025,600 6,605,000 Actual cost 2,322,817 3,605,087 3,988,325 - Table 5. Comparison original budget with cost per year (SEK). The project received a no-cost extension for 2012 with a budget of 6,605,000 SEK. Table 5 shows a comparison between budgeted cost and actual cost for different years. Figure 3 shows the original budget per activity compared to the forecast for final expenditure by the end of 2012. The activities that will receive increased focus during 2012 include Issue Clusters, Publications, Website development and Meetings/Workshops.



18

Figure 3. Comparison original budget with expenditure forecast 2009–12.

2.8 Activities and outputs

The project document developed by Sida and SEI in August 2008 presenting the establishment of SIANI describes three main functions of SIANI:

• Facilitate and enable networking • Organize clusters around specific thematic areas • Synthesise and enable understanding and knowledge connected to crucial agricultural

issues These functions have been developed through concrete activities in network communication, seminars and workshops, Cluster/Expert group activities, publications and strategic processes. These activities are described briefly below. For more detailed information on specific activities please see the SIANI Annual Reports. Network communication Network communication has been in focus through the Secretariat’s work with continuously updating and improving the SIANI website, writing and submitting the SIANI Newsletter (three issues per year from 2010). A lot of attention has been given to engage in cooperation with member organisations and sister networks e.g. Agri4D, Focali, Swedish Water House, Future Agriculture and Future Forests. SIANI has participated with posters at several international events to enhance the visibility of the Swedish initiative and to create an international network. The Secretariat has also supported its members by using the SIANI network and website for marketing and advertisement services for interested Swedish stakeholders regarding vacancies, etc. Member recruitment has increased by 8–10% per year since 2009 and SIANI had 630 members registered in March 2012. Seminars and workshops The activities SIANI has engaged in during the project period include a number of seminars and workshops on a wide variety of topics within international agricultural development. SIANI has also co-hosted several conferences and conducted training courses, e.g. with FAO



19

on the Ex-ante Carbon Balance tool. From 2009-2011 SIANI organised or co-hosted 24 seminars, workshops, conferences and trainings and are planning for another nine activities in 2012 (Table 7, see Appendix 4 for a full list). Cluster/Expert group activities The Secretariat has given support to targeted initiatives through the three formalised Cluster/Expert groups and also to Associated expert groups, e.g. in Climate smart agriculture, and the Thematic group on Gender. One open call for submission of applications for Cluster/Expert groups was issued in 2009. Applications have thereafter been on an ad-hoc basis. The applications have been subject for review by the Advisory board and in the last review of applications in January 2011, only one of five applications was approved (Chinese Land Inv.). At the same meeting a decision was taken not to engage in further Cluster/Expert groups until the next phase of SIANI has been approved. The documentation and reporting the evaluation team has received from the Cluster/Expert groups have not been sufficient to draw complete conclusions of their work. Their planned budgets and/or disbursement are reflected in Table 6. Group name Budget start–2011

(SEK) Budget 2012

(SEK) Disbursement start – April 2012* (SEK)

AgriSan 248,000 - 187,000 Biofuel and food security

- - 198,000

Chinese Land Investment

314,750 239,459 96,000

Gender Thematic group - - 47,000 Climate smart agriculture Associated expert group

- - -

*Based on available data from SEI Controller on disbursement to Cluster/Expert groups.

Table 6. Financial data on Cluster/Expert groups Publications Staff of the Secretariat has taken an active part in researching and writing of publications together with members. Cluster/Expert group and Associated groups have developed publications in the form of e.g. policy briefs. Progress is currently also made on a book on Gender in Agriculture. Four publications have been developed during 2011 and one debate article in media has been published in collaboration with other member organisations (GP, 23 June 2011). A number of publications through the work of the Secretariat and the Cluster/Expert groups are to be finalised during 2012. Strategic processes SIANI has been able to provide support to Sida and the MFA in several strategic processes to raise agriculture on the agenda. The SIANI annual reports describe nine such activities (Table 7). Activities include when SIANI has sent subject matter experts to participate in Sida planning seminars and give recommendations (e.g. on ProPoor Strategies in Agriculture and Gender in Agriculture) and when SIANI’s Advisory Group was directly asked to review Sida’s Issue Paper on “Agriculture and Food Security in Development – a review of selected issues”. In 2011 SIANI co-hosted with the Foreign Ministry the launch on 24 March of IFAD’s “Rural Poverty Report: The Direct Connection between Agricultural Development and Poverty Alleviation”.



20

SIANI have been represented and given input at several international conferences e.g. the COP16 in 2010 and COP17 in 2011 and organised side events. In 2012 they have been invited to present findings on Gender in Agriculture at the World Water Week in Stockholm. Table 7 shows the number of outputs within each activity, based on information collected from the SIANI Annual reports 2009-2011 and the work plan for 2012. Additional information was supplied by the Secretariat. A list of SIANI organised or co-hosted Seminars and workshops and a list of Publications are attached (Appendix 4). Activity Output Total

09-10 Planned

2012 Total 09-12 2009 2010 2011

Membership recruitment 497 ind., 82 org.

540 ind., 90 org.

600 ind., 90 org.

600 ind., 90 org.

630 ind., 90 org.*

630 ind., 90

org. Presentations, lectures 2 13 10 25 - N/A Seminars/workshops 1 (total

63 part.) 11 (total 560 part.)

12 (total 637 part.)

24 (total 1260 part.)

9 33

Cluster/Expert groups 0 active, 5

planned

1 active, 5 planned

3 active 3 3 3

Associated Expert groups, Thematic groups

0 1 2 2 2 2

Strategic processes 3 5 1 9 - Publications, policy briefs, articles, fact sheets

0 0 4 4 1** 5

Website Updated and user friendly

Rebuilding, new design,

database

Improved website

launched, individual

login, News feed

Further technical improve-

ments

Newsletter 1 3 3 7 4*** 11 Advisory group meeting 0 1 2 3 3 6 *Membership data from April 2012. **Based on available information, additional publications planned through the Secretariat and Cluster/Expert groups. ***One newsletter has been published in 2012, three more are planned.

Table 7. Overview of SIANI outputs

3. Findings

3.1 Relevance

Sida’s assessment memo (22.9.2008) included an analysis of the relevance of the initiative. A perceived neglect of the role of agriculture for poverty alleviation and poverty reduction was highlighted. This neglect was evidenced by a decrease of resources earmarked for agriculture from around 20% of the total funding for development cooperation to some 2–3%. Further, the memo notes that the Swedish capacity in this field has weakened considerably during the last few decades, resulting in less attention to agriculture within Sida, difficulties for Sida to



21

remain up to date with international debate, and a reduced ability for Sweden to influence international organisations (EU and UN) in this field. These were the original main arguments for the creation of SIANI with a prime aim to enhance the Swedish capacity for agricultural development cooperation where agriculture is seen in its socio-economic context. Since the time of the assessment memo (2008) a number of processes and trends have emerged, which have put agriculture as well as land use in a more general sense, including the global competition for land, even more in the lime light now. These were briefly highlighted in section 2.5. The evaluation team is in agreement with the vast majority of stakeholders that the team met, that the basic arguments for SIANI remain valid. In fact, they may be even more valid now. However, such very general relevance statement needs to be scrutinised more in detail. It is clear that there are diverging views on what SIANI really is, and its orientation can make SIANI more or less relevant. Main consensus points The team as well as all or nearly all respondents agree on the following:

• SIANI, as long as it is being funded from a budget vote for international development cooperation must have as an ultimate goal to achieve some impact outside of Sweden. It is recognised that such impact can be achieved indirectly by building better capacity in Sweden enabling Sweden to play a more significant role internationally and to deliver better-quality outputs to the international arenas.

• SIANI must not (and has not) evolved into a research network as there are already other networks with that orientation.

• SIANI, as a Sida-funded intervention, cannot be a straight forward activity for lobby or advocacy. Such responsibilities rest primarily with civil society organisations.

Main diverging points The team has noted that there are important diverging points with regard to the more “technical orientation” of SIANI, which in the view of segments of members, makes SIANI more or less relevant:

• The choice of technology to be promoted; agriculture with a strong focus on environmental factors (for example organic) or “conventional” agriculture with focus on high production.

• The focus on small-holder agriculture vis-à-vis a focus on an anticipated process of change in favour of larger farms, similar to the process seen in developed countries.

Some conducive points of departure in relation to relevance

• There is a shared view on a general need for the promotion of the Swedish international agricultural agenda.

• A broad-based network comprising considerable competence has been established. • Increasing international attention to the subject matter SIANI is to address.



22

Some constraints noted in relation to relevance Further, during its consultations the team noted certain constraints in relation to SIANI relevance:

• The demand for the outputs is sometimes not very clear. There are unclear or even weak driving forces and a few major players, including the MFA, are not among the active “customers” of SIANI outputs.

• Sida’s role is also vaguely defined. Is Sida expected to be an observer or an active driving force? Is Sida just one among many others?

• Depending on orientation, the activities of SIANI may become confused with activities of help desks or of commercial framework consultants with services procured by Sida through competitive bidding.

Relevance in relation to PGD and MFA policies The team notes that:

• The basic ideas on which SIANI rests are highly relevant in relation to the Policy for Global Development (PGD), both the aim of policy coherence and the aim of effectiveness/quality. Yet, it can be noted that agriculture or food security does not explicitly feature as one of the identified six global challenges, nor does it clearly feature as one among the 18 mentioned goals of PGD.

• There is ample evidence in the Policies from MFA that agriculture is regarded as important, even though it is often not explicitly mentioned. The relationship between the MFA policies and Sida’s sphere of operation is analysed in detail in the Sida report “Agriculture and Food Security in Development–review of selected issues”.

Relevance of the over-all goal, objectives, institutional links and SIANI’s target groups/stakeholders The team makes the following observations:

• The team’s view is that the overall goal of the project document (2008) and the goal mentioned in the ToR (2012) are highly relevant. Both are, however, ambitious, with the goal of 2012 most clearly overambitious.

• Most respondents are of the opinion that the current objectives are relevant in relation to the current goal. The team wishes to add, though, that the overall goal is delinked from the current activity of SIANI as is evidenced by the Results chain presented in section 2. There may be an underlying hypothesis that the mentioned results in Sweden will translate into impact in developing countries, but the mechanism for how this will happen remains un-analysed.

• On a similar note, the stakeholders mentioned are all Swedish, while an overriding aim of PGD is to assist developing countries in their specific challenges. It must, therefore, be concluded that SIANI’s relevance rests on an assumption that the Swedish resource base, if strengthened, will have opportunity and ambition to act in such a way that positive results are achieved in developing countries. The SIANI documentation does not elaborate on how this is expected to materialise even though the Annual report from 2011 reports on one case where members of the Swedish resource base (The VI Agroforestry project) was supported and strengthened with assistance of SIANI.

• In relation to the above points, and on a more practical note, the team observed that SIANI’s institutional link to MFA is weaker than, as a comparison, the corresponding links of the Swedish Water House, which operates more directly under MFA and the Swedish Ministry for Environment and is funded and more strongly guided by the same.



23

Relevance in relation to the expectations of members The following observations are made:

• Respondents to the team’s survey are of the opinion that it is important that SIANI continues (7.1 on a scale 1–10).

• Respondents ranked clarity on the reasons why SIANI was established at 5.13 on a scale 1–10, i.e. not impressively clear.

• Several stakeholders expressed appreciation of seminars and workshops while many expressed some doubts as to whether the Cluster/Expert groups contributed very clearly to the objectives and goal of SIANI.

External factors influencing relevance of SIANI There are several external factors influencing the relevance of SIANI:

• Increased international attention to agriculture and food security issues enhances the relevance of SIANI

• Decreased autonomy of Sida and increased policy influence of MFA reduces the relevance of SIANI as an entity under Sida and with rather weak links to MFA.

Relevance of subject matter delineation SIANI was launched at a time when there was a corresponding “sister” initiative focussing on forests, although the approaches chosen for (or by) the two initiatives were rather different. The Forest Initiative is currently running out of Sida funding.

• Most stakeholders with whom the team discussed this matter, were of the opinion that, in a development context, the differentiation between agriculture and forestry is artificial and unnecessary. The team shares this opinion.

• The justification for Swedish engagement in international agricultural development and forestry development respectively varies to a certain extent. Sweden is a more prominent international player in forestry.

Overall note on relevance The team shares the view that SIANI is relevant, and has a potential to become even more relevant. It is, however, also clear that the “relevance niche” is restricted by several factors mentioned above. It is also clear that SIANI must be more clearly defined and delineated, and the result thereof must become consistent over time and effectively communicated to members and other stakeholders. The links with MFA ought to be strengthened. The diverging views on the technical aspects within the agricultural domain may be destructive if such interests are given prominence over the general agricultural interest. As much as Swedish agriculture accommodates organic and other producers, large and small-scale producers, etc, SIANI should be consciously inclusive.

3.2 Effectiveness

In the absence of a clear and consistent LFA, baseline information, as well as indicators, the assessment of effectiveness by necessity becomes more subjective than what is desirable. SIANI has also been operational for a rather short time so it would be unrealistic to expect that very wide and far-reaching goals have already been achieved. In the following, the team discusses both the output and outcome level, bearing in mind that the output level is more hands on at this point in time than the outcome level.



24

Achievement of the overall goal According to the ToR, SIANI was established “in order to lay the foundation for a coherent Swedish response to the 21st century food and farming challenge”. At a Swedish level the team would expect this goal to translate into increased Swedish visibility and activity at international events and in international fora, including for example the United Nations (UN) and European Union (EU). The team would also expect an increased total engagement, and enhanced quality in agricultural development internationally (MFA level, Sida included). In relation to that, the team noted in particular SIANI activity and visibility at the recent UN Climate Change Conferences. It was not possible for the team to note higher level of activity or visibility by other Swedish actors, apart from SIANI itself, which can with credibility be linked to SIANI’s existence. The questionnaire respondents were of ”a slightly positive opinion” (6.03 on a scale 1–10) that the interest in Sweden for international agricultural development had increased since 2009. At a Sida level the team would expect this to translate into (i) increased volume and (ii) better quality of Sida-supported development cooperation programmes in the agricultural sector. It is hard to substantiate any trend in volume of relevant agricultural interventions in the absence of a consolidated stock taking of what actually goes on. The questionnaire respondents leaned towards a stand that the Swedish support to international agricultural development interventions has not increased since 2009 (4.45 on a scale 1–10). In a debate in Newsmill, Sida representatives argued that the Sida support to interventions aimed at rural development, agricultural or forestry development amounted to some 750 MSEK during 2011, but without indicating whether or not this represented an increment as compared to earlier years. According to statistics from OECD/ODA the total investment in 2010 from Sweden to Agriculture and Rural development had not increased since 2005 levels. With regard to better quality it is equally hard to present evidence. However, the team notes that SIANI has played a role in a Sida process leading to the position paper from Sida titled “Agriculture and Food Security in Development–review of selected issues”. Many respondents also reported that SIANI seminars and workshops had been good opportunities for learning. Such learning reached outside the spheres of Sida. MFA is, however, now guiding Sida more firmly than before. The team could not verify that SIANI has had impact on policy at that level, which could have been important for the “Sida level” if it had occurred. In the absence of baseline information as well as solid data on the situation now, the team is unable to draw firm conclusions on whether or not there are trends demonstrating SIANI´s progress with regard to its overall goal. The team notes, in this context, that to document all support channelled to agriculture through Sida and MFA can be tedious given the multitude of interventions and intervention types, yet, such information would be crucial for a more genuine assessment of both relevance and progress of SIANI. Close to 50 years of Swedish engagement in agriculture (and forestry) development has also generated experiences that could be worth a better synthesis than what is available at the moment. Such synthesis could help guiding what enhanced attention to agriculture in development cooperation should, and should not, focus on.



25

Achievement of the objectives As per the ToR the two objectives were to

• Stimulate and inject new knowledge into the Swedish debate on agriculture for development; and

• Facilitate cross-sector policy dialogue, in line with the coherence aim of PGD. Stimulate and inject new knowledge There is ample evidence from the interviewees that results have been achieved referable to this objective. The seminars deserve mention as they are generally regarded as being high quality. Several interviewees reported that they had learnt something from the seminars that they had been able to use in their work. A few mentioned that they had ensured to bring more representatives from their organisations when seminar topics had clearly been interesting and useful. Opinions on Cluster/Expert groups were more varied. Some felt that the topics chosen for Cluster/Expert groups were disparate and of limited relevance for SIANI’s overall goal. Others argued that the productivity of the Cluster/Expert groups was uneven, with in particular the Expert group on Biofuels and Food Security failing to be productive in spite of several meetings. Currently, the awareness of developments among the individuals involved in that group was variable. The team notes, with support from several interviewees, that the process for generating and identifying topics for Cluster/Expert groups was unclear. There was only one open call for proposals, in 2009. Nevertheless, proposals were received and reviewed by the Advisory Group as late as mid 2011. Facilitate cross-sector policy dialogue The network and the seminars combined are widely appreciated as a mechanism for people getting to know each other, who would otherwise not have met. The representation is regarded as non-elitist and inclusion of non-researchers is an important key feature. The polarisation on technical orientation (ref section 3.1) that was rather sharp before and during the inception period appears to have eased and evolved into a more constructive dialogue. There were initially rather strong opinions on SIANI becoming hosted by SEI, and although this may still be an issue for some, by and large that debate has cooled and a majority expresses positive rather than negative views on this arrangement. Factors in the external environment influencing SIANI effectiveness The team wishes to draw attention only to a few but important external factors. Increased attention to agriculture and food security generally This factor has already been highlighted elsewhere. It has been conducive for SIANI’s development but may also have masked some of SIANI’s achievements. Most interviewees do not link positive attention to agriculture much to SIANI but more to international trends. Changes in MFA–Sida relations When SIANI was initially conceptualised Sida had its section “NATUR” with a clear mandate on land use and environment. In addition, Sida was rather autonomous, issuing its own



26

policies and with an ability to make fairly far reaching decisions on technical and policy matters. Since then, MFA has acquired a monopoly on policy, and currently MFA also handles directly a significant portion of the budget earmarked for development cooperation. SIANI, being Sida-financed, has hence institutionally ended up in a Sida sphere with a more limited power base than earlier. This is a different situation as compared to the Swedish Water House. Another observation in this context is that Sida generally has had a turbulent time with frequent reorganisations, but in the view of the Secretariat this has not hampered SIANI as, fortunately, there was one administrative contact throughout. SIANI’s relations with MFA have not really prospered. It seems that in the agricultural institutional sphere, SLU has been more successful in attracting MFA’s attention. The output level After just a few years of effective operation it may be fairer to use intermediate indicators of progress rather than trying to identify and apply what may be the expected final indicators. Such intermediate indicators are more related to quality of activities and outputs than to achievement of ultimate goals. Was the volume of activity adequate? Taking the original budget as a benchmark indicating what was expected, the volume of activity is below expectation. This is evidenced by under-spending, especially in the start up phase. About 60% of the funds had been spent by the end of the originally planned implementation period and this is mainly due to a slow start. The seminar activity has been reasonably at par with what was planned. The questionnaire respondents ranked SIANI general activity level at 6.28 on a scale 1–10.

Was the quality of activity and output adequate? The Workshops and seminars organised by SIANI alone or in collaboration with other organisations have generally been much appreciated as shown in the responses to the Members survey conducted by the Secretariat in February 2012. The stakeholders interviewed shared this view. A sample of participant lists from six SIANI-hosted events showed that those events had 89% original participants, which indicates weak continuity. However, this may be due to the diverging topics of the events and, on the other hand, it also shows that SIANI has managed to reach a wide-spread audience. Two of three Cluster/Expert groups appear to produce high quality outputs. Other processes, like engagement in strategic processes, cannot be commented on as the team did not come across substantial evidence on which to base an assessment. It was, however, noted that the AgriSan Expert group has attempted to influence policy by organising a seminar and a study visit during World Water Week and that the SIANI learning event in Agriculture and Rural Development Day (ARDD; Rio 2012) is partly to be based on some outcomes documented in a policy brief produced by the same Cluster/Expert group. SIANI’s actual attention to demographic trends, urbanisation and their implications for agricultural trade and commercialisation of farming has been low. Stakeholder participation and outreach SIANI’s stakeholder participation has been high in seminars, but there was rather low interest outside of SEI in forming Expert groups. The questionnaire respondents were of the opinion that the Secretariat has more influence on SIANI’s work than the Advisory group. However,



27

no member of the Advisory group that the team interviewed complained that they were not given chances to influence, but the set up and time available for each member still made them more reactive than proactive according to some respondents. SIANI membership includes numerous employees of SLU. Yet the institutional cooperation at higher levels was not always as intense as what would have been desirable. This relates largely to differences in technical orientation which could be contentious to elaborate (no one will agree), but very briefly SEI and SIANI may be more oriented towards reduction of agricultures’ environmental impacts and a focus on socio-economic issues, while SLU and some other actors more clearly focus on production and productivity of farming systems. Lately the institutional cooperation has been strengthened. SLU is represented in the SIANI Advisory group. As already mentioned the link to MFA is weak. The Secretariat also expressed the opinion that the link to the private sector in general has a potential to improve. Outcome mapping as a supplementary method to conventional evaluation Attribution to SIANI The most evident outputs/results that can clearly be attributed to SIANI are:

• The creation of an appreciated network with currently 630 members representing 90 institutions and drawn from 37 countries. About 84% of the members are Swedish residents.

• A range of events that have brought actors together for consultation and dialogue • Newsletters and publications (most of the latter are still being in progress). • A degree of increased awareness among primarily Swedish actors with an

international agricultural agenda, although this is hard to substantiate or quantify.

Contributions by SIANI SIANI’s most significant contributions include:

• Assisting Sida in its positioning on agriculture. • Proliferation of Sweden’s participation in UN Climate Change Conferences and other

international events. • Deepened and synthesised knowledge on a few topics, notably gender and agriculture,

agriculture and sanitation, Chinese land investment in Africa and Climate-smart agriculture (although FAO as the original source of the concept Climate-smart agriculture expressed some concern that the concept tends to be narrowed down by some actors, SIANI included. FAO insists that Climate-smart agriculture rests on three pillars and in the following order of priority: (i) Improved livelihoods through increased productivity, (ii) improved resilience (adaptation) and (iii) reduced environmental impact (mitigation). According to FAO, some actors tend to translate the concept mainly to the third component, which is naïve and politically impossible).

Changes unrelated to SIANI The following important processes are unrelated or only vaguely related to SIANI:

• MFA’s new initiatives in the agricultural sphere, like support to SLU Global Office and to Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) through SLU.

• The internationally increased attention in recent years to agriculture and food security which is spurred by other factors than SIANI.



28

3.3 Impact

The above section on effectiveness has largely also covered what the team has observed in relation to impact. The overall finding is that it is hard to substantiate impact in relation to the goal of SIANI, while interviewees report achievements in relation to the two objectives which are likely to lead to impact in the longer run. These are regarded as intended impacts once they occur. Unintended impacts are few. Possibly, SIANI contributed initially to some sharpened division between the technical orientation of SLU and that of some other actors but such divisions appear fortunately to be eroding. Has SIANI influenced MFA, Sida or SEI? The team found no evidence that SIANI had influenced MFA although there could be indirect impacts. SEI has a continuous dialogue with MFA and the Ministry for Rural Affairs. SIANI contributed to Sida’s internal Issue Paper “Agriculture and Food Security in Development – review of selected issues”. Sida officials also frequently attended SIANI-organised events. It is, however, difficult at this point to substantiate that these inputs led to particular actions within Sida. There is no particular strategy developed on how SIANI could and would influence Sida. In the view of SEI, Sida is not an outstandingly important target point but rather one among many which could productively be influenced. SEI has generally appreciated its role as a host for SIANI. SEI mentioned the following important contributions that SIANI made to SEI:

• SIANI is a platform for integration and SEI can benefit from the competence among SIANI members.

• SIANI’s topics are complementary to those of SEI and other networks/initiatives currently closely linked to SEI, for example, Stockholm Resilience Centre and Ekologiskt Forum.

• SIANI can make contributions to SEI’s work in the policy arena. • SIANI is financially not unimportant for SEI at a time when Sida’s funding to SEI has

been rather drastically reduced. • SIANI is one of the important links SEI has with Sida. • SIANI provides an opportunity for SEI to become more visible in Sweden.

3.4 Efficiency

Efficiency in input v/s output One way to measure the efficiency of SIANI is to compare the expenditure with the amount of activities or outputs delivered. The process of starting up a working Secretariat was a rather slow process with many technical delays. In addition, the delays in finalising the governance structure and establishing the Steering committee and Advisory group delayed the effective project period. These are contributing factors to low expenditure compared to the original budget (Table 8). Most notably are the low expenditures in activities such as Consultancies, Issue Clusters and Publications while the expenditures for Meetings/workshops are closer to budget. The Secretariat staff costs have been almost as budgeted.



29

Budget item Original budget Cost 2009-2011 Budget 2012 Forecast total Secretariat staff costs 6,683,000 6,046,724 2,390,000 8,436,724 Travel 810,000 386,085 250,000 636,085 Consultancy 1,500,000 130,728 200,000 330,728 Issue Clusters 2,400,000 452,148 1,330,000 1,782,148 M&E 300,000 0 40,000 40,000 Publications 930,000 46,802 200,000 246,802 Website 200,000 215,650 350,000 565,650 Meetings/workshops 1,930,000 1,270,270 1,100,000 2,370,270 Advisory Group 0 29,489 50,000 79,489 Audit 0 21,813 20,000 41,813 Evaluation 0 0 325,000 325,000 Network Management 1,768,000 1,316,520 350,000 1,666,520 Total 16,521,000 9,916,229 6,605,000 16,521,229 Table 8. Budget, outcome and forecast for SIANI 2009–2012 (SEK) A no-cost extension was approved for 2012, which has the direct implication on the efficiency that a larger part of the budget is spent on maintaining the Secretariat and the budget for activities is reduced. Figure 4 shows that the Secretariat expenditure will amount to over 50% of the total budget of SIANI with the no-cost extension included, as compared to the originally envisaged 40%. The corresponding share for 2009–11 is about 61%. The budget for 2012 is specified per cost item in Table 8 above. A total of 9.9 MSEK was utilised during 2009–2011, corresponding to an average 3.3 MSEK/year with maximum expenditure in 2011 of close to 4 MSEK. The budget for 2012 is for a total of 6.6 MSEK, double the amount of the previous years’ average. It will obviously be challenging for SIANI to manage such peak of activity during 2012, although the team has taken note of SIANI’s explanation that it involves to a large extent activities of earlier years, which are now to be finalised and presented often in a printed form. This will generate a certain peak of expenditure. The largest increase in expenditure lies on activities within the Issue Clusters, with expenditure three times the total amount spent over the three previous years, and to be spent on only three Cluster/Expert groups, one of which has not been very productive in the past. The reporting from the activities and outputs of the Cluster/Expert groups is weak. Many stakeholders interviewed questioned the existence of the Cluster/Expert groups with the main arguments that their thematic areas seem ad-hoc and disparate, and that they to an extent have been initiated from within SEI.



30

Figure 4. Total expenditure forecast 2009–12 Organisational efficiency SIANI’s results and outcomes have not been well analysed and documented as the monitoring and evaluation system became operational only in February 2012. The delays in implementing SEI’s M&E system PMEC have been one cause, and the absence of a clear LFA to report against has also contributed. SEI has offered a stable platform for the SIANI Secretariat with access to core functions such as finance and communication which has reflected positively on its efficiency. The debate during the starting up of SIANI regarding its governance structure was not conducive to SIANI’s efficiency during the first 1.5 years of the project period. The governance structure with an Advisory group with members from different stakeholder organisations has since contributed to improved efficiency as well as to improved external relations.

3.5 Sustainability

The most critical aspect for sustaining the SIANI membership network under the current circumstances are if there will be continued funding for this relatively young initiative. The general sustainability of SIANI as a network would not be secured if funding was just discontinued now. Most stakeholders interviewed have expressed positive opinions toward the need for a stakeholder network such as SIANI to promote agriculture on the development agenda and enhance the capacity of the Swedish resource base. The number of participants at SIANI events shows a great interest in the topics it represents, which would most likely be sustained. Organisational sustainability SIANI has only had a short period to build up its network, organisational structure and recognition as a leading platform for stakeholder collaboration and debate in the field of agriculture in development. Its current structure with a separate Steering committee and Advisory group is seen by some interviewed stakeholders as a sustainable platform for the future even though other stakeholders have doubts to the sustainability of this set up.



31

The sustainability of SIANI being hosted by SEI is not clear as the next phase would be subject to public procurement processes according to Sida. This could open up to other organisations to host the continuation of SIANI. Sustainability of results Based on the stakeholder interviews and the Member’s survey conducted by the SIANI Secretariat in February 2012 and their positive responses primarily to the seminars and workshops, combined with the high total number of participants (1260 in 24 events) it is possible to conclude the following:

• The topics have been interesting to a large number of people, the information provided at the seminars has reached them and their general competence in the topic has been raised. A potential for increased quality of services from the Swedish resource base has been created.

• Several stakeholders (specifically from the private sector) have noted that there is no other network or platform drawing together such a wide variety of stakeholders (including the government, academia, private sector and civil society) and that they would not have had this possibility to expand their network if not for SIANI. Even if SIANI discontinued, some already established contacts between members would sustain.

Sustainability of funding The sustainability of SIANI in its current format is based on the continued funding from Sida or other Swedish authorities such as the Foreign Ministry and/or the Ministry of Rural affairs. The evaluation team concur with many of the stakeholders interviewed that there would be a limited sustainability if SIANI was to be financed by its members through e.g. membership fees and seminars provided at cost.

3.6. Governance

Overall good governance and transparency is a precondition in all initiatives supported by state funds. The fact that SIANI was “given” to SEI by Sida without a public procurement process and despite being a Swedish governmental institution cannot be considered ideal. Several interviewed stakeholders have also noted that the selection process was not sufficiently transparent and some were “surprised” when the decision was made public. Sida has made clear that the host for a possible second phase will be publicly procured. The stakeholder interviews have provided information that the governance structure within SIANI is currently not clear to all involved. The role and responsibilities of the Advisory group require clarification as well as the role and responsibilities of Sida as funding organisation and part of the Steering committee. An ambition should be to achieve a situation where actors external to SEI are more proactive. The Secretariat provides a structured organisation of the activities, however the late introduction of a functioning M&E system has made it difficult to assess the results and evaluate the processes used. The Advisory group has contributed to the development and effectiveness of SIANI since its formation and its potential for the future has been identified by many stakeholders as very positive.



32

The Cluster/Expert group formation is one example where the application process has not been clear to stakeholders. Only one call for proposals has been issued in 2009 and there is a tendency noted by many stakeholders interviewed that the Cluster/Expert groups mainly originate from ongoing projects or activities within SIANI’s host SEI. This situation has been noted by the Advisory group during a meeting in 2011 and it recommended that an open call for proposals is submitted at the beginning of a second phase of SIANI. Since the establishment of the Advisory group in the second half of 2010, applications have been submitted to them for a formal approval process. Consultants have been engaged in the Cluster/Expert groups without bidding procedures and, even though only modest sums were contracted, improvements need to be made in the procurement structure before scaling up of activities.



33

3.7 A SWOT analysis

The team carried out a rapid SWOT analysis with the Secretariat staff. The result is reflected below. The team participated to a certain extent proactively, but most of the points mentioned below represent the Secretariat’s examination. Strengths Weaknesses

• A dedicated team manning an established and functional Secretariat

• Each staff member in the Secretariat brings a personal network which reinforces the work

• SEI’s institutional support • Good communication with networking

organisations, including with Sida • The Advisory Group • Financial support from Sida • Good quality of events with focus on specific

subjects • Institutional and professional profile of

members • Website developed • Continuously increasing membership • Expert groups • Competence on climate-related agricultural

issues • Small organisation but taken seriously

internationally • SIANI is established and is operational • SIANI is “more” accessible for non-

agricultural professionals as it is hosted by SEI.

• Its location in SEI; not in a mainstream agricultural institution

• Not well endowed with resources for activity • Sida’s insistence that SIANI develops its own

publication series rather than piggy-backing on SEI’s publication series

• Little published so far • Small staff (2.5 positions) • Website in its current form • Stockholm-centric operations • Weak contact with UD • Not extremely successful in entering into

policy dialogues • SLU communication constrained at the

highest level • Too much one-way communication • In-house communications; SIANI could have

benefitted more from the SEI communication expertise

• Goals and objectives not so clear • No logical framework analysis • Delayed system development for M&E. • Difficult to reach private sector; must be very

targeted to succeed in bringing them in • Little output related to trade and other socio-

economic issues • Agriculture defined too narrowly.

Opportunities Threats • Cluster/Expert groups’ concept can be

developed further • Website improvement • Expansion • Connect Sweden with international

networks/dialogue • Nexus approach including attention to water,

forestry (land use in a broader sense) • Engage Advisory group in developing LFA

for a second phase • Activate sleeping members • Get private sector more engaged.

• There are other networks • The demand for policy inputs appears weak.

No customer for that. • Financed by Sida which is continuously

being reorganised • Funding not secured for a long time • Popularity of agriculture goes up and down

(now popular in literature, but what about the actual implementation level?)

• The Paris Agenda may limit scope for Sweden to engage in agriculture in some countries

• SIANI may not fulfil its ambitious goal • Unclear goals and objectives.



34

4. Conclusions and recommendations

4.1 SIANI’s current status and achievements

SIANI has managed to connect some 630 people from 90 organisations through its networking activities. This demonstrates the great interest in the issues concerning international agriculture development in Sweden. This group represents an important resource and has the potential to develop into a major actor promoting agriculture on the international development agenda. The seminar series organised or co-hosted by SIANI have been highly appreciated whereas other activities have been considered less constructive for SIANI’s objectives in their current form, e.g. the Cluster/Expert groups. SIANI has a functioning Secretariat and core functions for networking with e.g. web site, newsletters, and partner coordination. It has an established governance structure with a Steering Committee and an Advisory board. The budget and work plan for 2012 is ambitious and the activities include e.g. a number of seminars planned and publications under development that need to be finalised by the end of the year. The Secretariat has to work strategically to facilitate these processes rather than acting as individual contributors. The outputs should be continuously documented in the recently established M&E system, PMEC. Recommendation 1 In order to reach the goals set for 2012 in terms of activities and outputs, the Secretariat is recommended to focus on facilitating these processes strategically. The established M&E system needs further attention to maximise its potential. Prime responsibility: The Secretariat

4.2 SIANI remains relevant and needed

Practically all stakeholders contacted are of the opinion that the basic justification remains valid, i.e. there is still a need for strengthened attention to agriculture in the Swedish development cooperation. SIANI’s network comprising practitioners as well as lecturers and scientists makes it different from other networks. There is, however, a definite need to identify much more clearly what SIANI should achieve. Such greater clarity will make SIANI deserve support from funds set aside for development cooperation. Recommendation 2 SIANI should be supported for another phase. Greater clarity on its goals, objectives and target groups must be part of the foundation for a second phase. A clearly defined connection with development cooperation partners in developing countries is needed. Prime responsibility: Sida, the Advisory group

4.2 Goals, objectives and target groups

SIANI must have a clear orientation towards results to be achieved which are beneficial to people living in poverty in developing countries. It is recognised that such impact can be achieved indirectly by enhancing the capacity in Sweden. Nevertheless, there must be more than assumptions that this will happen. When applied to the sphere of development cooperation, it is reasonable to expect that such ambition will translate into (i) larger volume of development cooperation interventions that are related to agriculture as well as (ii)



35

enhanced quality of such interventions. More indirectly, Swedish influence in international fora, with a clear direction towards processes and positions that are beneficial for developing countries, should also be expected. The verification of success in such endeavour requires baseline information as well as identified indicators. The team is aware that such results may partly be of a long term nature. The team would further argue that some such objectives must be time limited, while others are more eternal. Increased volume/share of development cooperation interventions is an example of a time limited objective (there must be a time when the level or share reaches a level that is perceived reasonable; there is no structural reason explaining that the level/share will always be too low). On the other hand, strengthening the quality of Swedish inputs must be accepted as an endeavour with no specific end. The target groups must, at least indirectly, include people living in poverty in developing countries. Recommendation 3 A second phase must be based on a more stringent analysis on what SIANI is to achieve if it is to attract funds earmarked for international development cooperation. Ultimate goals must include results in developing countries, through increased quality and volume of agricultural support and conducive policies for such support. Ultimate target groups must include people living in poverty in developing countries. Prime responsibility: Sida, the Advisory group

4.3 Subject matter coverage

There is a wide acceptance among stakeholders that the division between agriculture and forestry is irrelevant in a SIANI context, and especially so in a situation where there may be no corresponding initiative on forests. In third world countries agriculture and forestry is a definite continuum and this is reinforced in the era now with sharpened competition for land. Agriculture is also included in the broader term of Food Security as defined by FAO at the World Food Summit 1996: “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. By widening its concept to involve all aspects of Food Security, SIANI could reach a broader audience and attract attention from other stakeholders and possible funding agencies, however this expansion of the concept would be at the cost of loosing focus on the main topic and is not easily matched to institutional arrangements in Sweden or internationally. Recommendation 4 A continued SIANI should explicitly be an initiative targeting land use for both agriculture and forestry production. Food security, as defined by FAO, could be an alternative option, however, food security is a broader issue and not easily matched to institutional set ups either in Sweden or internationally. Prime responsibility: Sida, the Advisory group



36

4.4 A need to take a step back

There is a strong shared vision on the need to put agriculture and forestry effectively back on the Swedish development agenda but no (or weak) shared vision of what this really may entail and what can be regarded as feasible in the 21st century. There are lobby groups for organic farming, for small scale farming and other lobby groups emphasise production and commercialisation more than anything else. Sida’s recent “Agriculture and Food Security in Development – review of selected issues” has contributed to a “Sida agenda” in this field. Recommendation 5 The Secretariat should make continuous and strengthened efforts to bring in a wide array of actors representing different ideas while implementing the activities planned for 2012. A second phase of SIANI should be consciously inclusive and give room for actors with somewhat different agendas so long as these agendas contribute to the shared vision of enhanced Swedish engagement. Prime responsibility: The Secretariat and the Advisory group Sida and Swedish stakeholders have been active in development cooperation in the agricultural domain for close to 50 years. Hence, there is a wealth of experience to draw on. Sida’s “Agriculture and Food Security in Development – review of selected issues” does that to some extent. It would be useful to bring different actors together to review past experiences and to put such experiences in a contemporary context. The ambition should be to identify more precisely what the relevant agricultural (and forestry) initiatives and interventions should be bearing in mind also in what spheres Sweden may have a comparative advantage. The overall ambition should be inclusiveness more than exclusiveness, but also to identify subject area niches where Sweden has little comparative advantage or which for other reasons should not be part of a core Swedish agenda. The limited baseline information has been noted in this evaluation. There is a need to secure that relevant key data is collected before the initiation of a new phase or in an inception period of a new phase. Recommendation 6 Commission a baseline study of the current status of agriculture in Swedish development cooperation. This should be combined with a study to review Swedish past experiences of agricultural development cooperation, including experiences from NGOs, research and private sector, to suggest a list subject area niches which are most relevant for Swedish engagement. An ambition should be to take “more attention to agriculture” more clearly beyond the stage of general rhetoric. Prime responsibility: The Secretariat under guidance of the Advisory group and in consultation with Sida

4.5 Future institutional arrangements

Sida has clearly indicated that the selection of a host for a possible second phase must be based on competitive procurement. The current arrangement with SEI has had its pros and cons. Generally, SEI has provided a reasonably neutral ground (some would disagree with that though), but it has made SLU not being a co-owner and the links with the now so important MFA are weak. Important policy development and policy application is effectively outside the influence of SIANI. This may partly be attributed to SIANI being a Sida-financed activity and not an activity financed directly by ministries (as the Swedish Water House). For



37

this type of network to gain recognition it is important to have founders that are actively commissioning its work in strategic processes. SIANI could be strengthened in a second phase through clearer linkages to Governmental bodies and a clear definition of the private sector’s role. Whatever the procurement mechanism will imply, it would be desirable to get SEI, SLU, Sida, together with MFA and the Ministry of Rural Affairs all actively engaged and be the core institutional sphere that feels a co-ownership together with the members. Such joined force will further promote constructive dialogue on the issues discussed under 4.3 and 4.4 above. In case forestry will be part of the agenda, as recommended, The Swedish Forest Agency would be another core partner. A straight-forward competitive procurement process may be counterproductive to this if designed for selection of just one host among potential candidates. One option might be to procure a minimal mechanism for continuity from a commercial actor, and that such commercial actor would be mandated to oversee direction and productivity, while there is a rotation of the Secretariat among the mentioned core institutions (Ministries obviously excluded). Another option would be to have just a rotational Secretariat, but it would require a longer time period to be functional and it is hard to envisage how a rotational arrangement can be achieved with the Sida procurement requirement in mind. Recommendation 7 Devise a way to get several core Government actors, including SEI, SLU and possibly the Swedish Board of Agriculture- more equally engaged, and define more clearly the relationship with MFA and the Ministry of Rural Affairs. Also define more clearly what role the private sector can realistically play in relation to SIANI. Prime responsibility: Sida

4.6 Future funding options

Ideally, SIANI should attract sufficient attention to receive funding directly from core Ministries (as the Swedish Water House). A second best option would be to find a way of co-financing between Sida and other public actors, including SLU. The third option is to continue with Sida funding as now. It is hard to envisage any other funding options at the moment, which could generate substantial resources. In the longer run, when the network is formally recognised nationally and internationally, other visions should be developed, including the possibility for co-funding from the private sector. Recommendation 8 Explore different funding options. Prime responsibility: Sida and Influential members of the Advisory group

4.7 Ensure stringent documentation for a second phase

A second phase would have higher credibility and may also generate more interest if based on a much clearer agenda based on similar requirements as those normally applied for development cooperation interventions. An improved definition of its governance structure is needed with clear expectations for all primary stakeholders involved, including the funding organisations, the host organisation/s, the Advisory Group and the Secretariat. The Secretariat could support the preparatory process, but if the second phase is to be publically tendered, the



38

current members of the Secretariat must be left outside of the final planning in order for them to become eligible to tender for the continuation. Recommendation 9 Initiate, as a matter of urgency, the preparation of plans for a second phase. Ensure rigour and quality of process and in documentation. This task includes a careful analysis of the roles of a future SIANI (reference to the section on relevance in this report) and better definition of its governance structures. Prime responsibility: Sida and elected members of the Advisory group. Hire an independent consultant to assist in the process.



39

Appendices

Appendix 1. Terms of Reference

Appendix 2. Persons and organisations met or contacted

Appendix 3. Documentation consulted

Appendix 4. List of Activities

Appendix 5. Evaluation survey

40

Appendix 1. Terms of Reference

Terms of Reference for the Evaluation of the first phase of the

Swedish International Agricultural Network Initiative (SIANI)

1. Background

Sweden has an international reputation for being at the forefront when it comes to environmental

sustainability and socio‐economic development. In terms of global influence in these areas, Sweden has

produced good examples and innovative solutions.

A network initiative to stimulate greater collaboration among Swedish actors and engagement by the Swedish

resource base in international agricultural issues was discussed in a working group at Sida already in 2006.

These discussions, carried out internally at Sida with external support and consultations, resulted in the design

of The Swedish International Agricultural Network Initiative in 2008, in order to lay the foundation for a

Coherent Swedish Response to the 21st century Food and Farming Challenge.

There were two main trends of thinking that underpinned the design of SIANI: 1) a perceived neglect over the

last decades of the crucial role of the agricultural sector to overall sustainable development, 2) the aim of

policy coherence across government departments and economic sectors as stipulated in the PGD. It was also

generally understood that there is an extensive competence base within agriculture among Swedish

stakeholders, even among those groups not traditionally seen as participating in the agricultural sector, but

which is hampered in terms of international policy influence by the challenge of understanding and

appreciating different perspectives, experiences and types of knowledge.

Sida and SEI jointly developed a program description for SIANI in 2008, and the secretariat for SIANI is hosted at

SEI. The inception phase was initiated in October of 2008 and carried over to 2009 during which time a wide

range of stakeholders were consulted during an inception workshop, which resulted in the SIANI Inception

Report. Activities began in 2009 and in 2010 the secretariat grew to include two full‐time and one part‐time

staff members as well as students doing internships. Attached to the Secretariat is an Advisory Group

consisting of representatives from the Swedish government, NGOs, multilateral agencies, academia and the

private sector. The first Advisory group meeting was held in August 2010.

2. Project Development and Challenges

Due to delays in recruiting external staff, the first phase of the project, which was scheduled to run from 2009‐

2011, only really got going towards the very end of 2009. Due to the slow start the project is extended for one

more year to 2012 (no cost extension).

What has emerged clearly over the last year is that it is necessary for SIANI, due to the small size of its

Secretariat, to limit itself to some core topics and to build its activities on the commitment and engagement of

partners. The initial core topics have been identified as: 1) Climate‐Smart Agriculture for Poverty Alleviation, 2)

Competing Demands on Agricultural Lands, 3) Agricultural Trade and Markets, 4) Gender in Agriculture, and 5)

Nutrient Flows/Sustainable Production.

SIANI’s mission to bring together actors with very different perspectives and kinds of knowledge is also one of

its key challenges but also represents a unique opportunity to address interlinked and interdisciplinary issues. It

is initially a network created “from above” rather than something that has emerged spontaneously or been

requested by the resource base that it seeks to mobilize. To encourage partners to become active participants

in the design and execution of SIANI activities has remained a challenge for the secretariat.

41

3. Project Goals

The over‐all goal of SIANI is to lay the foundation for a coherent Swedish response to the 21st

century food and

farming challenge. This entails putting in place a form of long‐term institutional support for Swedish policy

development and to strengthen the capacity, competence, and collaboration of Swedish institutions and

actors. It entails gathering government, civil society, industry and research around the same table to discuss

key challenges and Sweden’s contribution to the kind of global agricultural development that everybody

ultimately wants; where the goals of food security, poverty reduction and environmental sustainability are all

met. These two objectives to SIANI’s over‐all goal are formulated as follows in the work plan:

1) To Stimulate and Inject New Knowledge into the Swedish Debate on Agriculture for Development

2) To Facilitate Cross-Sector Policy Dialogue, in line with the coherence aim of the Swedish Policy for

Global Development (PGD)

Other networking functions of SIANI are to serve as a connection point for Swedish actors from different

sectors and as an access point for external actors seeking to connect with Swedish expertise.

4. Purpose of the Evaluation This evaluation is envisaged as an evaluation and as a learning process for the primary stakeholders of SIANI,

helping the Secretariat, the Advisory group, SEI and Sida to draw on the experiences of the first phase to take

decisions for the future activities. This will require a report that:

1) Assesses the relevance of SIANIs stated objectives, strategies and activities to its over‐all goal

2) Evaluates the past effectiveness of SIANI in implementing the chosen activities

3) Provides recommendations on how to optimize internal capacity‐building and learn from past

experiences

4) Proposes how SIANI could be further improved and developed, if Sida should decide to continue

supporting the initiative.

5) Propose other possibilities for financing if Sida should decide not to continue to support SIANI

5. Proposed Evaluation Questions

5.1 General

• How well has SIANI achieved its main objectives?

• Were those objectives relevant to the over‐all goal of the project?

• Were the objectives linked to Sida's general development goals?

• Was the SIANI secretariat efficient in facilitating work towards SIANIs objectives?

• What aspects of the implementation of SIANI have contributed to the objectives being achieved/ not

achieved?

• Do activities organized by the SIANI secretariat and outcomes from the same correspond to

expectations of members?

42

• Have the results and outcomes of SIANI been adequately described and documented?

• Are SIANI’s results likely to be sustainable after the end of the project period?

• What are the most critical aspects for sustaining the SIANI membership network?

• What are the most important results, recommendations and lessons from the project so far?

• What changes would improve the effectiveness and relevance of SIANI in the future?

• Have there been any unintended consequences of this project?

5.2 Context

• What aspects of the external environment have influenced the effectiveness and relevance of SIANI?

• Have there been substantial relevant changes in the external environment during the project

implementation period?

5.3 Management and Institutional

• How effective has SIANI been to engage and activate the resource base not yet in the SIANI network

and get those actors involved?

• What has been the influence and impact of the SEI hosting the SIANI secretariat?

• What has been the experience of the SEI management and the SIANI secretariat respectively of this

arrangement?

• How has this arrangement influenced the relationship between Sida and the SEI?

• How has this arrangement influenced the relationship between SEI and other key Swedish actors?

• How has the Advisory Group contributed to the development and effectiveness of SIANI?

• To what extent has SIANI’s networking activities influenced Sida and the SEI respectively?

6. Proposed Evaluation Design and Methodology

The evaluation will follow the criteria and principles as outlined in the OECD‐DAC Evaluation Quality Standards

and Sida's Evaluation Manual, "Looking Back, Moving Forward ". SEI also recommends that the evaluators use

outcome mapping as a tool for identifying the various spheres of influence of SIANI and its influence within

those spheres. By using outcome mapping this evaluation can provide an important input for the PMEC system

that SEI has established for monitoring and evaluation of the Sida‐financed Institutional Programme Support

2011‐2014.

43

The evaluation will have two distinct phases: a Research Phase and a Finalization Phase.

6.1 Research Phase

In the Research Phase the consultants will carry out activities which may include, but not be limited to:

• Analysis of relevant documents.

• Interviews and meetings with stakeholders and beneficiaries (in Sweden).

• Review of expenditure data to disaggregate costs of different elements of the project.

• Focus group meetings with stakeholders.

• Preparation of a draft evaluation report.

5.2 Finalization Phase

In the finalization phase the draft evaluation report will be reviewed by key actors, with a particular focus on

reaching consensus on recommendations regarding the future. Specific activities for the consultant in this

phase may include:

• Presentation of the draft report to SEI, Sida and the Advisory Group.

• SEI and Sida will be given opportunity to provide a written comment to the draft report.

• A consultative process to finalize the findings and recommendations.

• Presentation of the final evaluation through a seminar to Sida, SEI and other key stakeholders within

the SIANI network.

7. Stakeholders

Primary Stakeholders: Sida, SEI, Secretariat, Advisory Group, Expert Groups

Secondary stakeholders: Government departments and authorities, NGOs, Academia, Private sector

Beneficiaries: Members, Policy makers, Swedish resource base

8. Work plan and Time-schedule

The evaluation will take place during March ‐April 2012. The outline timing would be:

• Research March culminating in delivery of draft evaluation report

• Finalization March‐ April , culminating in delivery of the final evaluation report

44

9. Reporting

The consultant will be recruited in February 2012 and will report in the first instance to the Stockholm

Environment Institute.

The evaluation report shall be written in English and be limited to maximum 30 pages, excluding annexes.

Two paper copies and an electronic version of the draft report shall be submitted to the SEI and Sida and no

later than April 10, 2012.

Two paper copies and an electronic version of the final report shall be submitted to Sida two weeks after

having received comments from SEI and Sida on the report.

In the order of 28 person days shall be used for conducting the evaluation, reporting and presenting.

10. The Evaluation Consultant

SEI will hire a consultant team (“the consultant”) to carry out the evaluation. The consultant will fulfill the

purpose of the evaluation as stated above. The consultant is invited to review the proposed methodology and

evaluation questions contained in this TOR and may propose modifications or changes as part of the bidding

process and in the inception report.

Consultant teams are eligible to bid for this consultancy. The key requirement at the bidding phase is to

demonstrate quality and experience in the proposed team. The team should have demonstrable experience in/

knowledge of:

• Programme evaluation and Outcome mapping

• Network management

• Finance and programme management

• Current issues in global agriculture, food security and sustainable development



45

Appendix 2. Persons and organisations consulted

Name Organisation SIANI affiliation Interviewed 1 Amalia Garcia-Thärn Perm.rep IFAD/FAO Advisory Group x 2 Ana Paula de la o

Campos FAO Gender

3 Anders Wijkman Advisory Group Advisory Group 4 Anita Ingevall Sida Sida 5 Ann Uustalu MFA MFA no resp. 6 Anna Norström Ecoloop AgriSan Cluster group 7 Anna Rahm Sida Sida 8 Annika Åhnberg Ekologiskt Forum Ekologiskt Forum x 9 Annika Törnqvist Sida Gender Sida 10 Arvid Uggla SLU Global Advisory Group x 11 Benita Forsman SEI SIANI Secretariat x

12 Björn Hansson NIRAS Natura Advisory Group x 13 Bo Lager Vi Agroforestry Climate smart Agriculture x 14 Cathy Farnworth Pandia Consultants Gender x 15 Christer Holtsberg Ex Sida Ex Sida 16 Christina Furustam Swedish Farmers

Association Advisory Group x

17 Christina Törnstrand Ministry of Rural Affairs

Advisory Group x

18 David Bauner Renetech Biofuels Expert group x 19 Elisabeth

Kvarnström Vectura AgriSan Cluster group

20 Erik Skoglund Ex Sida Ex Sida 21 Eva Ohlsson Sida Zambia Sida no resp. 22 Francis Johnsson SEI Biofuels Expert group 23 Fredrik Ingemarsson SIFI/KSLA SIFI/KSLA x 24 Gert Nyberg SLU SLU 25 Gunnar Köhlin GU GU x 26 Gunnel Axsson

Nycander Swedish Church Advisory Group

27 Göran Björkdahl Sida, Burkina Faso Sida 28 Göte Fridh Board of Agriculture Advisory Group x 29 Henrik Brundin Swedish Cooperative

Centre Climate smart Agriculture

30 Håkan Jönsson SLU AgriSan Cluster group 31 Inge Gerremo Ex Sida Ex Sida x 32 Ingrid Öborn SLU SLU 33 Ivar Virgin SEI SEI



46

34 Jakob Lundberg FAO Nordics Chinese Land Inv. Expert group

35 Johan Kuylenstierna SEI SEI x 36 Johan Rockström SEI SEI x 37 Karin Höök Naturskyddsföreningen Advisory Group x 38 Katarina Eckerberg Umeå University, Ex

SEI Umeå University, Ex SEI x

39 Katarina Eriksson Tetralaval Advisory Group x 40 Katrin Aidnell IFAD Gender 41 Kerstin Jonsson

Cisse Sida Sida x

42 Kimberly Nicholas LUCSUS LUCSUS 43 Kjell Havnevik Nordic Africa Institute Advisory Group x 44 Lars Espeby Ministry of Rural

Affairs Advisory Group x

45 Lennart Båge SLU and Sida board member

Chinese Land Inv. Expert group

x

46 Lennart Olsson LUCSUS LUCSUS 47 Linda Engstrom SLU Biofuels Expert group x 48 Linley Chiwona

Karltun SLU SLU

49 Louis Bockel FAO Climate smart Agriculture 50 Madeleine Fogde SEI SIANI Secretariat x 51 Madeleine Jönsson FAO Climate smart Agriculture 52 Magnus Jirström LUCSUS LUCSUS 53 Margareta Sundgren Sida Sida/SIANI Desk officer x 54 Mari Olsson SEI Chinese Land Inv. Expert

group x

55 Mari Albihn Sida Sida x 56 Maria Osbeck SEI ex. SIANI Secretariat x 57 Maria Schultz SWED-Bio SWED-Bio 58 Mats Denninger MFA MFA x 59 Mats Johansson Ecoloop AgriSan Cluster group x 60 Matthew Fielding SEI SIANI Secretariat x 61 Mattias Goldman Gröna Bilister Biofuels Expert group 62 Mauricio Ospino

Portilla SEI ex. SIANI Secretariat

63 Melinda Fones Sundell

SEI SIANI Secretariat x

64 Michael Ståhl Steelfox consulting Biofuels Expert group x 65 Mike Jones SEI/SRC SEI/SRC 66 Neil Powell SEI ex. SIANI Secretariat x 67 Ngolia Kimanzu Swedish Cooperative

Center Advisory Group x



47

68 Olivia Taghioff UNDP / Rwanda ex. SIANI Secretariat 69 Per Björkman Skogsinitiativet Skogsinitiativet 70 Per Giertz Orgut Orgut 71 Pernilla Malmer SWED-Bio SWED-Bio 72 Peter Holmgren FAO Climate smart Agriculture x 73 Peter Roberts WWF Chinese Land Inv. Expert

group

74 Prudence Woodford-Berger

MFA MFA no resp.

75 Rasmus Klocker-Larsen

SEI ex. SIANI Secretariat x

76 Simon Persson SEI SEI x 77 Thomas Rosswall CCAFS Advisory Group 78 Ulf Magusson SLU Livestock SLU Livestock x 79 Åke Barklund KSLA KSLA x 80 Åsa Andrae MFA MFA no resp.



48

Appendix 3. Documentation consulted

External documentation:

Albihn, Mari and Kerstin Johnsson Cissé. 2 February 2012. Orättvis kritik mot Sidas utvecklingsarbete med jordbruket, Newsmill. http://www.newsmill.se/node/42890

Axelsson Nycander, Gunnel, Thomas Rosswall, Olivia Taghioff and Anders Wijkman, 23 June 2011. Jordbruket nyckeln till en planet i balans, Göteborgs Posten. http://www.gp.se/nyheter/debatt/1.659023-jordbruket-nyckeln-till-en-planet-i-balans

FAO. 2009. How to Feed the World in 2050. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf

Gerremo, Inge. 16 July 2009, Hög flumfaktor bakom Sidas nya jordbruksbistånd, DN Debatt, http://www.dn.se/debatt/hog-flumfaktor-bakom-sidas-nya-jordbruksbistand

Gerremo, Inge. 27 January 2012. Sida saknar helhetssyn på den afrikanska matförsörjningen. Newsmill. http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2012/01/18/sida-saknar-helhetssyn-p-den-afrikanska-matf-rs-rjningen

Gerremo, Inge. 30 March 2012. Dags att trygga matförsörjning i regeringens nya biståndsplattform. Newsmill. http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2012/03/30/dags-att-trygga-matf-rs-rjning-i-regeringens-nya-bist-ndsplattform

OECD/DAC, 2010. Quality Standards for Development Evaluation. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/0/44798177.pdf

OECD/ODA Statistics. 2012. Aid to Agriculture and Rural Development by donor, commitments, 2005-2010. http://www.oecd.org/document/44/0,3746,en_2649_34447_43817324_1_1_1_1,00.html

OECD/ODA, December 2011. Aid to agriculture and rural development. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/36/61/49154108.pdf

OECD/ODA, April 2010. Measuring Aid to Agriculture. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/38/44116307.pdf

Sida and SEI. 2008. SIANI Program Document, The establishment of the Swedish International Agricultural Network Initiative (SIANI).

Sida, Agriculture and Food Security in Development – review of selected issues, September 2011.

Sida’s Annual Report 2011, http://www.sida.se/Documents/Import/pdf/Sidas-229rsredovisning-2011.pdf



49

Sida. 2007. Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management.

Sida. 2007. Looking Back, Moving Forward, Sida Evaluation Manual, 2nd revised edition. http://www.sida.se/PageFiles/3736/SIDA3753en_Looking_back.pdf

Stockholm Environment Institute, Inception Report: Swedish International Agricultural Network Initiative (SIANI), Project Report, 2009.

Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2008. Swedish Policy for Global Development Skr. 2007/08:89. www.regeringen.se/sb/d/10266/a/101082 Utrikesdepartementet PM UF2010/62591/UP, Bidrag till AGRA inom ramen för regeringens särskilda satsning på livsmedelsförsörjning år 2010, http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/16/38/65/2eaa8c38.pdf

World Bank, World Development Report 2008, 2007. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/WDR_00_book.pdf

Öborn, Ingrid, Ulf Magnusson, Jan Bengtsson, Katarina Vrede, Erik Fahlbeck, Erik Steen Jensen, Charles Westin, Torbjörn Jansson, Fredrik Hedenus, Helena Lindholm Schulz, Maria Stenström, Benny Jansson, Lotta Rydhmer. 2011. Future Agriculture: Five Scenarios for 2050-Conditions for Agriculture and Land Use, SLU. http://www.slu.se/Documents/externwebben/centrumbildningar-projekt/framtidens-lantbruk/Scenariorapport-web.pdf

Internal documentation:

SIANI Annual reports, 2009-2011

SIANI Workplans 2009-2012

SIANI Financial Reports, 2009-2011

SIANI Advisory group, Minutes from meetings 2010-2012

SIANI Membership survey, February 2012

Contracts, communication, financial data and documentation provided by the SIANI Secretariat and SEI



50

Appendix 4. List of activities

1. List of Seminars and workshops

No. Title Date No. of part.

1 SIANI Inception workshop 29 Jan. 2009 63 2 Carbon Trading and Agricultural Development, 12 Jan. 2010 45 3 Bioenergy, sustainability and trade-offs: does global

sustainability threaten local sustainability? 27 Apr. 2010 20

4 Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) 18 May 2010 45 5 Production and Carbon Dynamics in Sustainable

Agriculture and Forest Systems in Africa 28-29 Sep. 2010 110

6 From Source to Sink: How to make Agriculture part of the Solution to Climate Change while contributing to Poverty Alleviation

6 Dec. 2010 35

7 Pro-Poor Growth and Agriculture 27 May 2010 50 8 The road from Nagoya to Cancun: Biodiversity and

Climate Change 4 Nov. 2010 30

9 The Perils of Peak Phosphorus: Geopolitics, Food Security, Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Rights: Implications for Western Sahara

19 May 2010 90

10 Biotechnolygy: What’s in it for Africa? 2 Sep. 2010 70 11 Balinese Subak traditional water management systems as

UNESCO World Heritage Site? 27 Oct. 2010 5

12 The 21st century Land Rush: colonial style land-grabbing or a new development opportunity?

10 Nov. 2010 60

13 From Source to Sink: How to make Agriculture part of the Solution to Climate Change while contributing to Poverty Alleviation?

6 Dec 2011 Cancun

50

14 ExAct Training 1 20-21 Feb. 2011 17 15 ExAct Training 2 8-9 Dec. 2011 50 16 Nutrient flows as a tool to develop policy and priority

areas for actions 28 Mars 2011 -

17 “Why Women Matter in Agriculture: Overcoming Gender Barriers to Agricultural Development” - seminar

5 Apr. 2011 35

18 “Why Women Matter in Agriculture: Overcoming Gender Barriers to Agricultural Development” – write-shop

5-8 Apr. 2011 15

19 Agriculture Marketing and Trade: Rights-based Versus Market-based Development: A False Dichotomy for small-scale Farmers?

3 Mar. 2011 100

20 Annual conference on Agricultural Research in Development – “Scales and Diversity in a Context of Food Security and Sustainability”

28-29 Sep. 2011 120

21 Global Food Security: Biophysical and Social Limits 7 Nov. 2011 80



51

22 Tällberg Forum 2011 - two workshops: 1. Socio-political dimensions of the global food system, 2. Sustainable agricultural production.

Jun-Jul 2011 -

23 Launch of IFAD’s Rural Poverty Report: The Direct Connection between Agricultural Development and Poverty Alleviation.

24 March 2011 90

24 Can Mitigation Funding benefit Smallholders' Food Security and build Climate Resilience?

3 December 2011 (CoP Durban)

80

25 Why don’t we use soils to mitigate climate change? 8 May 2012 - 26 Can mobile phones improve agricultural productivity,

resilience and food security? 29 May 2012 -

27 Workshop with the theme “ The Global food chain” Tällberg Forum

14-17 June 2012 -

28 Cash transfers and Local Market Development 11 Sept, 2012 - 29 Seminarium om Katastrofriskreducering i Jordbruket

Almedalen 1juli 2012 -

30 South at the Steering Wheel-seminar and workshop on large scale tropical biofuel investment

29 May2012 -

31 The profitable link between agriculture and sanitation - research to mainstream - World Water Week Seminar

29 August 2012 -

32 Why African women matters in sustainable food production - World Water Week Seminar

29 August 2012 -

33 Linking Food Production and Sanitation – reuse of blackwater in practice - Study tour World Water Week

31 Aug 2012 -

2. List of publications, policy briefs, articles, fact sheets

No. Title Date 1 Policy brief: Nutrient reuse as a Solution multiplier (AgriSan group) Dec 2011 2 Cluster Group report: Challenge of putting agricultural issues into

sanitation planning (AgriSan group) Sept 2011

3 Background paper: Biofuel for the confused (Biofuel group) 2011 4 Debate article: Jordbruket nyckeln till en planet i balans (Agriculture key

to a planet in balance), Article in GP 23 Jun 2011

5 Fact sheet: China as a Major Development Actor: Implications for Agriculture and Land-use in Africa, DRAFT (Chinese Land Inv. group)

April 2011

6 Book: Gender in Agriculture, DRAFT (Gender thematic group) -



52

Appendix 5. Evaluation survey

Submitted to 80 people (see list in Appendix 2), 40 responses received.

1. The overall goal of SIANI is to “lay the foundation for a coherent Swedish response to the 21st century farming challenge”. The current objectives of SIANI are: (i) To stimulate and inject new knowledge into the Swedish debate on agriculture development and; (ii) To facilitate cross-sector policy dialogue, in line with the coherence aim of the Swedish Policy for Global Development (PGD). How relevant are the objectives in relation to the overall goal of SIANI?

no. responses 3

37 skipped 3

Not at

all

Very much

N/A Average No.

Resp. On a scale from 1 - 10.

0,0% (0)

0,0% (0) 5,4% (2)

2,7% (1)

16,2% (6)

5,4% (2)

2,7% (1)

35,1% (13)

10,8% (4)

16,2% (6)

5,4% (2) 7,4 37

2. Are the objectives being met?

no. responses

440

skipped 0

Not at all

Very much

N/A Average No.

Resp.

On a scale from 1 - 10.

5,0% (2)

10,0% (4)

7,5% (3)

7,5% (3)

15,0% (6)

15,0% (6)

12,5% (5)

17,5% (7)

0,0% (0)

2,5% (1)

7,5% (3) 5,35 40

3. Have your expectations with SIANI been met?

no. responses 4

40 skipped 0

Not at

all

Very much

N/A Average No.

Resp.


7,5% (3)

7,5% (3) 5,0% (2)

10,0% (4)

15,0% (6)

12,5% (5)

12,5% (5)

15,0% (6)

7,5% (3)

0,0% (0)

7,5% (3) 5,43 40

4. Has the general interest in Sweden for international agricultural development increased since 2009?

no. responses 4

40 skipped 0

Not at

all

Very much

N/A Average No.

Resp.


2,5% (1)

20,0% (8)

5,0% (2)

5,0% (2)

2,5% (1)

5,0% (2)

12,5% (5)

27,5% (11)

5,0% (2)

10,0% (4)

5,0% (2) 6,03 40

5. Has the Swedish support to international agricultural development interventions increased since 2009?

no. responses

440

skipped 0

Not at

all

Very much N/A Average

No.

Resp.


7,5% (3)

12,5% (5)

17,5% (7)

12,5% (5)

5,0% (2)

10,0% (4)

2,5% (1)

7,5% (3)

5,0% (2)

2,5% (1)

17,5% (7) 4,45 40

6. To what extent is the SIANI advisory group influencing SIANIs work?

no. responses

338

skipped 2

Not at all

Very much

N/A Average No.

Resp.


0,0% (0)

2,6% (1) 2,6% (1)

2,6% (1)

21,1% (8)

7,9% (3)

7,9% (3)

13,2% (5)

0,0% (0)

2,6% (1)

39,5% (15)

6 38

7. To what extent are SEI and the Secretariat influencing SIANIs work?

no. responses 4

40 skipped 0

Not at

all

Very much

N/A Average No.


0,0% (0)

5,0% (2) 0,0% (0)

0,0% (0)

5,0% (2)

10,0% (4)

10,0% (4)

15,0% (6)

7,5% (3)

12,5% (5)

35,0% (14)

7,35 40



53

8. How clearly defined was the reason for the establishment of SIANI?

no. responses 4

40 skipped 0

Not at all Very

much N/A Average

No.


10,0% (4)

10,0% (4)

2,5% (1)

10,0% (4)

15,0% (6)

10,0% (4)

2,5% (1)

7,5% (3)

5,0% (2)

7,5% (3)

20,0% (8) 5,13 40

9. How active has SIANI been?

no. responses 440

skipped 0

Not at all Very

much N/A Average

No.

Resp.


0,0% (0)

7,5% (3) 7,5% (3)

7,5% (3)

10,0% (4)

20,0% (8)

15,0% (6)

7,5% (3)

15,0% (6)

7,5% (3)

2,5% (1) 6,28 40

10. How important is it that SIANI continues? Please include comments or recommendations for the future in text below.

no. responses

440

skipped 0

Not at all Very

much N/A Average

No.

Resp.


7,5%

(3)

2,5%

(1)

5,0

% (2)

0,0%

(0)

12,5

% (5)

10,0

% (4)

0,0%

(0)

17,5

% (7)

22,5

% (9)

20,0

% (8)

2,5% (1) 7,1 40

Comments and recommendations for the future

no. responses

223

skipped 17

1 SIANI is a network of participants with agriculture and food production, processing and marketing as a common interest. This area will be of increasing importance as it is closely linked to rural development, food safety and standard of living for many people, especially in developing countries. Sweden has knowledge, experience and existing cooperation in the area that can assist and support national and local efforts in developing countries. These resources could be utilized more and hopefully also better. SIANI can through it´s activities stimulate discussion, create engagement as well as raise awareness among operators in Sweden (the Swedish resource base) and in this way serve as a catalyst in a process of creating effective development support and cooperation between Sweden and developing countries.

2 This is difficult to answer. It is necessary and important that the Swedish government realise, recognize and put forward agriculture's importance for economic growth and poverty reduction. It is however not self-evident that this is achieved through ?the government (by means of SIANI) lobbying itself?. SIANI feels like sort of a "detour". A detour that brings about a broad dialogue, however.............

3 SIANI provides a different option from the "prestigious" institutions. SIANI acts like a bridge between common man and the elite and is more civil society inclined. This means people from different walks of life engage in their seminars and activities. This could have much to do with the leadership, enabling a wider audience to feel welcome. If there is a future for SIANI, this has to be taken into account. Academic debates and arenas for such discussions abound in Sweden but seldom do they bring different groups to come together, combine with civil society or the common man. SIANI makes this possible and by conducting more seminars, symposia in conjunction with other networks and platforms international agriculture in SWEDEN could garner strength and wider publicity here and internationally.

4 The establishing of SIANI was opposing an ongoing development at SLU with a true scientific approach and had - as it looked from outside - a clear NGObias.

5 It is important that SIANI sets proper priorities and engages more actively with is stakeholder members.

6 The initial idea may have been of importance but what has happened with the ambition to coordinate actors within Sweden? Has any cluster ideas been developed? Which and why/why not? In at least some cases I see problems in terms of the coordination effort to give interested actors the ability to participate. How cost effective has this effort been compared to other possible ways to support research, action and cooperation on agricultural development?

7 A national network is needed to capture the international dialogue and build a Swedish competence to analyze and support international projects. The network should be scientifically based and individual players should not pursue their own agendas. To create a greater impact activities could be focused and the holistic analysis strengthened. An advisory group might create unclear governance. However, I have no insight into how Sida headed up the operations at startup and how the degrees of freedom for the activities looks like today. It is a challenge in a short time to build up clear governance, including a wide range of stakeholders, with measurable targets. This could be reviewed.

8 3 and 6:. Not very much basis/experience for these judgments. 7. We believe(!) that the SIANI Secretariat has great influence, whereas the SEI does not 9. Not much overview of the activities, except for seminars... 10. Something has to come instead, if the network is not allowed to continue. Transformation to an institute. The more policy-directed, the greater the risk that it gets unpopular. The policy advice it could deliver has to be requested from Sida and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

9 The NA:s I have noted are mainly because that my knowledge about SIANI is limited. I was partly involved in the discussions long before the final decision, but after retirement from office I have not taken an active part in the SIANI development. However, my major concern when the decision was taken, was in fact the SIANI attachment to SEI. I would have preferred SLU. SLU has the overall mandate to facilitate agricultural development (not only in Sweden) and has also the full competence (research, graduate and post-graduate education and connections to the agr. industry). It´s not enough that the project coordinator and the head of SEI have agr. background; many, many more contacts more are needed to reach out to the international arena, the extension service in direct contact with farming society and to the most important group; the agronomists of the coming generations. If SIANI continues I would like to see a much closer official relationship to SLU; SLU`s new management has a real interest in international development.

10 SIANI in its current form does not really contribute to the high goals of the initiative. The original aim of establishing clusters across the country was a very good idea but we have not seen any of it. To my knowledge SIANI has organised a couple of workshops and seminars but not resulted in any long term profound development of ideas around the topics of international agriculture.

11 SIANI secretariat has worked diligently and arranged many interesting events. However, I question the seriousness of Sida in this matter (i.e. in relation to the overall goal of SIANI).

12 SIANI is very active in relation to its resources; funds and staff. It could do much more with another personnel resource and a network of paid focal points, or institutional connections beyond those available in the advisory group.

13 I have been actively involved only in one Cluster group and have had little interventions with other groups and activities within the SIANI-programme. Therefore I have to little information to answer all of the questions above. Coming from an area outside our nearby the agricultural sector (water and sanitation) I see that an initiative as SIANI can identify important synergies and maybe also start processes that otherwise wouldn't see the light of day.



54

14 A comment on how this survey was set up: I believe a category that says "I don't know/not relevant to my experience of SIANI" is needed. I personally don't know the answer to many of these - as they are not really relevant to the part of SIANI that I have participated in - something the survey does not allow me to indicate. I have thus chosen N/A in several cases, noting that not applicable is not my desired answer, but due to the lack of other options when not wanting to "rank" leaves me no choice.

15 The lack of a clear governance structure, especially a Board, makes for too much of an ad hocish approach. Who decides what to prioritize and why is not clear! How is the accountability structure organized?

16 Future agriculture and farming will increasingly be affected to challenges of equity, land tenure, intensification, water issues, desertification, urbanization vs ruralization, peak oil and etc. In parallel it is unlikely that the current political and economic systems can regulate and balance agriculture production with consumption local & global and deal with the challenges faced. How to create locally integrated, resilient and resource efficient natural resource management at a broad scale whilst also preserving and using ecosystem services and balancing the production with consumption will be key for the future. However, current policies and economic models do not support such a development. Hence, if SIANI is to continue it would be interesting to put more emphasis on: - To integrate natural science with social and economic science - To become more "political" in the sense of creating debate and making different ideologies regarding managing natural resources more transparent. And how these relate to sustainable pathways and current science. - To identify sustainable livelihood models that integrate agriculture with e.g. energy, climate adaptation, forest management, aquaculture etc, that can be promoted on broad scale.

17 Not possible to answer if not knowing in what form and under which conditions the concept could continue. The establishment of SIANI went wrong from the start because Sidas mandate from the government to work with agriculture was very unclear at that time. The internal Sida leadership seemed also very vague on what to do and recommend to the government. In other words, there seemed to be no visions or strategic plans from Sida what to do as a government agency in this field to put it bluntly. Because very much of lacking social competence all parties within the sector were not involved in a reasonable way. Having the secretariat established in SEI gave the signals that the interest was more on the environmental side as such and not to discuss and develop ideas about sustainable agriculture based on true agricultural knowledge. This could however have been rectified if these other parties had felt that they had something to contribute with of interest to Sida. SIANI became, as I see it, more of link between the NGO society and Sida than a joint effort from Sida and its relevant government organisations within agriculture like SLU, SJV, SLV, Skogsstyrelsen, SVA etc where they could discuss with the civil society based on Sidas vision what to do in the field of agriculture. Summing up, a SIANI-like effort could be useful in the future if Sida has a clear mandate from the government what to do in the agricultural field or its own clear views what the agency wants to develop in order to try to influence the government to eg increase the Swedish bilateral development cooperation, improve the Swedish involvement in EUs agricultural work and the multilateral efforts in fora like FAO, IFAD etc or in the agricultural debate as such as an adviser to the political level.

18 SIANI continuation is important if and only if it broadens and opens up

19 More of lobbying that larger share of aid should go to agricultural sector.

20 My N/A responses to questions 4,5,6 & 7 mean that I do not know enough about SIANI to give a fair evaluation. Overall I think that SIANI could be more active in pursuing its goals. It needs leadership as well as project management. There is scope for more specialist groups and a lot more interaction between specialist groups and major actors in the agricultural sector. SIANI's goals are extremely important given the fundamental importance of agricultural development in the face of a range of crises and conflicts.

21 Some of the questions below is difficult to answer, like what has happens with Swedish support to agriculture I would also say the current objectives of SIANI are more relevant than the overall goal, as I think it could in fact be both positive and more likely there will be a variety in responses, but that SIANI can contribute to more respect and understanding between these various responses. SIANI has made a strong work in establishing itself, and I would say to get pay off of the investment it would be important to let the initiative continue to work,

22 It is important to get SIANI time to consolidate the activities. There is a great interest in SIANI work and there is space for a forum like SIANI , SIANI safeguard the interest from many actors within the field of agriculture in a time where there is a capacities within the Agriculture sector is draining out of Sida and where specific expertise is also needed to support UD. SIANI collects the interest from more actors than only research which very good and there is no other platform for collaboration. For the a future phase a participatory LFA process is necessary to define goals and the expected outcomes It is important to give SIANI the opportunity to reach out to the Swedish network and resource base outside of Stockholm- it is also important to facilitate a dialogue between the resources base in Sweden and connect it with the Swedish professionals working with Sustainable Agriculture Development abroad. As SIANI is now established it is possible to influence policy with evidence generated from the Swedish resource base.

23 SIANI should continue with more efforts being put in establishing more linkages and active networking with global actors in agriculture and poverty reduction like IFAD/FAO and the World Bank. More active participation and partnership with ODI's work. Better focus of the expert group with the overall SIANI vision. What about the Forestry sector. Global agriculture development does not separate the two.